[00:00:01] >> WELCOME RESIDENTS, NEIGHBORS, AND GUESTS. [CALL TO ORDER] BEFORE I OPEN THIS MEETING, WE HAVE AN INVOCATION AND A PLEDGE LED BY COMMISSIONER GRANT. >> GRANT [INAUDIBLE] >> LET'S PRAY. LORD, THANK YOU FOR THE DAY. PLEASE GUIDE THIS COMMISSION AND CITIZENS OF ATLANTIC BEACH AND OTHERS WHO HAVE JOINED US TODAY. ALSO LOOK AFTER ALL OFFICIALS, BOTH LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL IN THEIR POSITIONS AS THEY CONDUCT THE N AND STATES BUSINESS. PLEASE LOOK AFTER OUR CHILDREN AS THEY BEGIN THEIR NEW SCHOOL YEAR. BELIEVE TODAY WAS THEIR FIRST DAY OF SCHOOL. PLEASE WATCH OVER THEM AS THEY ARE THE FUTURE OF THIS GRAND CITY THAT WE LIVE IN. LASTLY, PLEASE LOOK AFTER AND BRING PEACE TO THOSE THAT HAVE LOST LOVED ONES IN RECENT DAYS. JESUS CHRIST'S NAME, WE PRAY. AMEN. >> >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. THIS CITY COMMISSION MEETING DATED AUGUST 11, 2025, CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH WILL NOW COME TO ORDER. ADONNA, CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? >> MR. BOLE? >> PRESENT. >> MR. GRANT? >> PRESENT. >> MR. KELLY? >> PRESENT. >> MR. RING? >> PRESENT. >> MAYOR FORD? >> PRESENT. OKAY. OPENING UP WITH ITEM 1 IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES. [1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] ITEM 1A, APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE BUDGET WORKSHOP ON JULY 28, 2025. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS? HEARING NONE. THE MINUTES STAND AS SUBMITTED. ITEM 1B. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 28, 2025. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS ON THOSE MINUTES? HEARING NONE, THOSE MINUTES ALSO STAND AS SUBMITTED. THEN FINALLY, THE ITEM 1C, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP HELD ON AUGUST 6, 2025. ANY CORRECTIONS TO THOSE? OKAY. THE MINUTES STAND AS SUBMITTED. WE'LL MOVE DIRECTLY TO OUR FAVORITE PART OF OUR MEETING. [2. COURTESY OF FLOOR TO VISITORS] IT'S COURTESY OF THE FLOOR TO VISITORS. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE SIGNED IN FOR THIS? >> SIX. >> IN KEEPING WITH WHAT I'VE STATED IN THE PAST, WE'RE NOT TAKING OTHERS AFTER THIS BECAUSE I'M GOING TO ALLOW 5 MINUTES PER SPEAKER. >> [INAUDIBLE] EIGHT. >> THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING. WE'LL GO WITH 5 MINUTES. IF YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK FOR 5 MINUTES, DON'T. IF IT'S A REPETITIVE STATEMENT, JUST GO AHEAD AND AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS PERSON, BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO 5 MINUTES. THE CLOCK HAS SET AT 5 MINUTES. I WON'T GABBLE YOU AT EXACTLY 5 MINUTES, BUT YOU'LL SEE ME LOOKING AT YOU, AND I'LL GABBLE YOU AT ABOUT 5 MINUTES AND 10 SECONDS. APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE, BUT WE HAVE DECORUM AND WE'LL OBSERVE THE 5 MINUTES. FIRST SPEAKER. >> I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE DOING THE SWEARING IN FIRST. >> FOR THIS. >> IT'S NOT THE AGENDA. >> THANK YOU. >> IF THAT'S OKAY. >> IT IS ABSOLUTELY OKAY. >> BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GET INTO THE REGULAR COURTESY OF THE FLOOR, WE HAVE A SPECIAL TREAT TODAY, OFFICER ERIC KOHLER, AND WHO'S GOING TO BE HANDLING THIS? CHIEF, COME ON UP. >> VICTOR GUALILLO CHIEF, POLICE. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO DO THIS SWEARING IN IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION TONIGHT. IF I COULD HAVE OFFICER KOHLER. STEP UP, PLEASE. IT'S A SPECIAL OCCASION WHENEVER WE ARE WELCOMING A NEW POLICE OFFICER INTO ATLANTIC BEACH INTO OUR FAMILY. LET ME OPEN WITH A QUOTE FROM REAR ADMIRAL ALFRED THAYER MAHAN FROM THE MILITARY RULE OF OBEDIENCE MARCH 1902. THE VALUE OF TRADITION TO THE SOCIAL BODY IS IMMENSE. THE VENERATION FOR PRACTICE OR FOR AUTHORITY, CONSECRATED BY LONG ACCEPTANCE HAS A RESERVE OF STRENGTH, WHICH CANNOT BE OBTAINED BY ANY NOBLE DEVICE. SOMETIMES WHEN WE GET TOGETHER TO DO THESE, [00:05:03] WE LOOK AT TAKING AN OATH AS A ROTE THING, A BOX CHECK, SOME WE JUST WANT TO WALK THROUGH, BUT OFFICER KOHLER WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THE OATH THAT YOU TOOK TO UPHOLD THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS IS A REAL THING, BUT IT'S ONLY REAL IF YOU ACT ON THOSE WORDS ON THAT PIECE OF PAPER. THERE'S NO OVER 24,000 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO'VE LOST THEIR LIVES IN LINE OF DUTY, AND THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WHO'VE GONE BEFORE YOU AND ARE WORKING TODAY, AND WE REMIND YOU THAT ALL THOSE OFFICERS HAVE TAKEN THAT SAME OATH. YOU'RE GOING TO UPHOLD THAT OATH, AND THEY'RE GOING TO STAND ON YOUR SHOULDERS IN THEIR RETIREMENT AND POSTHUMOUSLY, ALSO. OFFICER KOHLER, IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE AND REPEAT AFTER ME, I STATE YOUR NAME. >> I KOHLER >> A CITIZEN OR AUTHORIZED NON CITIZEN. >> A CITIZEN OR AUTHORIZED NON CITIZEN. >> OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. >> OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. >> AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. >> AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. >> AND RECIPIENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS. >> AND RECIPIENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS, >> AND BEING EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH. >> AND BEING EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH. >> DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR. >> DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR >> TO ENFORCE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION. >> TO ENFORCE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION. >> OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. >> OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. >>THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. >> THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA >> AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA. >> AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA. >> I ACCEPT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS. >> I ACCEPT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS. >> AS MY GENERAL STANDARD OF CONDUCT. >>AS MY GENERAL STANDARD OF CONDUCT. >> AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. >> AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER >> FOR THE SEA OF ATLANTA BEACH, FLORIDA. >> FOR THE SEA OF ATLANTA BEACH, FLORIDA. >> [INAUDIBLE] OFFICER KOHLER, WHO WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE ON YOUR BADGE? [INAUDIBLE] HERE IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY MISS [LAUGHTER] WELCOME ABOARD. GLAD YOU ARE HERE. WANT TO SAY ANYTHING. WELCOME TO. >> OFFICER KOHLER CONGRATULATIONS AND WELCOME. >> THANKS >> NOW. WE'LL DO THE CITIZEN COMMENTS. AND BEFORE WE GET STARTED ON THE CITIZEN COMMENTS, IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON EITHER OF THE TWO VARIANCES WHICH ARE AT THE END, WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT THERE. PICK WISELY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK ON THAT, SPEAK DURING THE VARIANCE HEARINGS, AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING ELSE, THEN SPEAK AT THIS PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'LL WAIT JUST A SECOND. THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] >> KEN SIMON. >> MAYOR COMMISSIONERS, KEN SIMON, 1945 IS DEMAR CIRCLE, MY WIFE [INAUDIBLE]. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO TALK IN REFERENCE TO THE 20TH STREET LIFT STATION PROJECT AND WORK BEING DONE. THE GENERATOR AND THE FUEL TANK THAT'S BEING INSTALLED CURRENTLY. WE HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION SEVERAL TIMES, TOWN HALLS, DIRECT MEETINGS WITH THE CITY MANAGER. AND YET WE STILL SEE THAT THE CITY CONTINUES TO PUT IN PLACE AND INSTALL NEW CONSTRUCTION ON GENERATORS AND FUEL TANKS THAT DON'T MEET FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. THE VERY REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HOLD ALL OUR CITIZENS ACCOUNT TO THEIR OWN GENERATORS AND THEIR RESIDENCES. WE KNOW PARKING PADS AND THE LIST GOES ON FOR FOR RESIDENTIAL OWNERS IN THE CITY, WE DON'T DO OURSELVES. THAT WOULD BE MY COMMENT TODAY. THE REASON I KNOW THAT IS BECAUSE WE ARE WORKING AND COMMUNICATING WITH THE CITY. WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE CITY MANAGER IN MAY, DESCRIBING THAT WE WOULD HAVE A SITE PLAN REQUIRED FOR A GENERATOR IN A GAS TANK. [00:10:01] THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN. THE NEXT THING THAT HAPPENED WAS ON JUNE 26, A WHOLE BUNCH OF CONCRETE TRUCKS, 15 TONNE CONCRETE TRUCKS ROLLED INTO OUR ACCESS ROAD, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, INTO THE AREA RIGHT BEHIND OUR HOUSE. WE HAD NEIGHBORS CALLING. WE HAD VIDEOS OF THIS TRUCK. WHAT THEY DID IS THEY WENT AHEAD AND POURED CONCRETE SLABS, REDID SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT I TALKED TO YOU BEFORE ABOUT, WHICH IS AN INADEQUATE STAND FOR THE GENERATOR THAT'S BEING LIFTED ALMOST 9.5 FEET IN THE AIR. WE COMMUNICATED WITH THE CITY MANAGER, AND WHAT WE HEARD WAS, WELL, THE PERMITS OR THE REQUIREMENTS OR THE SITE PLAN IS BEING WORKED ON. THE WORK IS ALREADY BEING DONE, ALREADY COMPLETED, AND YET A SITE PLAN WAS NEVER DONE. THAT SITE PLAN IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK I'M GOING TO USE SOME OF MY TIME AND I'M LOOKING AT THE 2 MINUTES THAT ALREADY PASSED, WHAT A SITE PLAN IS. THAT IS A COMPLETE SCOPE OF WORK. THE FUEL TANK SPECS, THE ELEVATIONS, THE POWER OF THE GENERATOR. IT INCLUDES THE ANCHORING OF THE PADS, FLOOD RESISTANT MATERIALS, CONFORMING WITH FEDERAL RISK MANAGEMENT, WHICH IS WHERE OUR FUNDING COMES FROM. IT IS A WHOLE LITANY, INCLUDING FUEL STORAGE AND MY FAVORITE NOISE MITIGATION. THAT'S WHAT A SITE PLAN REQUIRES, YET THE WORK CONTINUES. I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK, AS THE SAME I DID ON THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, THAT YOU HALT THE WORK UNTIL WE ABIDE BY FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. I'M NOT ASKING FOR A PERMIT. WE HAVE HEARD IN THE PAST ON MARCH 24 WHEN THE MAYOR ASKED OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, DO WE NEED A PERMIT? THE ANSWER IS TECHNICALLY WE DON'T NEED A PERMIT IN THAT PROCESS, BUT WE DO NEED TO MEET THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, AND WE'RE NOT DOING IT. IT'S NOT BEING DONE. IT'S PROVEN BY THE WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT THE PERMIT. NOW, A PERMIT WAS APPROVED JUST RECENTLY, WE FOUND OUT ON AUGUST 1ST. JULY 22, IT WAS REQUESTED, AND WE ALSO CONTACTED THE CITY INSPECTOR, AND HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT YET. HIS NAME IS LISTED FOR THE SLABS, AND FOR ANOTHER PART OF THAT PERMIT PROCESS. WE'RE DOING THE PERMIT PROCESS AFTER THE FACT OF CONSTRUCTION. NOW, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT ALL THOSE IS THE 20TH STREET. THERE'S NO DOUBT IN OUR SEEKING TO FIND OUT HOW THE CITY DOES THEIR PROJECTS THAT MOST ALL OTHER GENERATED PROJECTS ACROSS THE CITY ARE NOT ALSO CONFORMING TO FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND ESPECIALLY ANY FEMA FUNDED PROJECTS, WHICH REQUIRE IT. I'M GOING TO APPEAL TO YOU, LIKE I SAID, PLEASE STOP THE WORK UNTIL THOSE PERMITS ARE COMPLETED AND APPROVED AND MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS. IT'S THE VERY SAME ACCOUNT THAT YOU WOULD HOLD THE RESIDENTS OF THIS CITY IF THEY WERE DOING WORK ON SOMETHING THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT FOR, SO PLEASE STOP. THE SECOND THING I'LL ASK FOR IS RESIDENT NOTIFICATION, WHICH HAS COME UP SEVERAL TIMES DURING THIS COMMISSION. THE MAYOR HAS BROUGHT IT UP. MISS RING HAS BROUGHT IT UP ON THE MOST RECENT COMMISSION MEETING IN REFERENCE TO WORK BEING DONE AROUND ADJACENT TO RESIDENTS HOMES. PLEASE LET'S NOTIFY, AND IT CAME UP AS A SUGGESTION. I SUGGEST WE NOTIFY RESIDENTS WHEN WORK OF THE CITY IS BEING DONE ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTIES. I SAY, PLEASE TAKE IT UP AS NEW BUSINESS. LET'S PUT SOMETHING PERMANENT IN THE BOOKS OR AS AN ORDINANCE THAT WHEN PROJECTS ARE BEING DONE, THAT RESIDENTS ADJACENT TO THESE LARGE PROJECTS MUST BE NOTIFIED. THE LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I SAY ASK YOU FOR YOU TO TAKE UP NEW BUSINESS IS A COMMERCIAL GENERATOR REQUIREMENT FOR THE CITY. WE KNOW THAT YOU THAT PUBLIC UTILITIES MAY GET AWAY WITH AND DO A WORK AROUND FOR NEEDING A PERMIT. BUT RIGHT NOW, WE NEED TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL PERMIT REQUIREMENT JUST LIKE MOST CITIES ACROSS FLORIDA. >> BUT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FLOOD HAZARD ZONE BECAUSE THAT ADDS ANOTHER ELEMENT THAN JUST TO A COMMERCIAL GENERATOR. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. AND MRS. SIMON. >> LISA HAROLD. >> HELLO, LISA HAROLD. MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT FIRE SUPPRESSION AND THE SALE OF WATER TO NEPTUNE BEACH. I'M ASKING YOU TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO SELL OUR WATER TO NEPTUNE BEACH. IS IT TO BENEFIT THE CITIZENS OF NEPTUNE BEACH OR NEPTUNE BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE, OR IS IT SPECIFICALLY TO HELP THE DEVELOPER WHO IS LOOKING TO DEVELOP 500 ATLANTIC AND HAS HAD THE SAME PROPERTY FOR A GOOD BIT OF TIME AND MAYBE DOESN'T WANT TO SPEND THE FUNDS TO IMPROVE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE. I ASK YOU TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THAT. THEIR WATER IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OUR WATER. SO IT WOULD PROBABLY SAVE HIM A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO PURCHASE WATER FROM ATLANTIC BEACH AND GET ALL THAT DONE. [00:15:01] I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THAT AND CONSIDER THE CITIZENS OF NEPTUNE BEACH AND THE CITIZENS OF ATLANTIC BEACH. THANKS. >> THANK YOU, MRS. HAROLD. >> SUZANNE BARKER. >> HI. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS, MAYOR. I'M ALSO HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE FIRE SUPPRESSION. I WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE THE WORKSHOP UNFORTUNATELY, BUT I DID GET TO SEE THE TAPE, AND IT'S LIKE DEJAVU ALL OVER AGAIN. IT WAS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO THAT NEPTUNE BEACH CAME AND WANTED OUR WATER, AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS FOR THE CITIZENS, AND IT TURNED OUT THAT WASN'T THE CASE. IT WAS STRICTLY FOR THE DEVELOPER. THEY'VE COME BACK. THIS TIME THOUGH, THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY WANT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM, AND THAT SOUNDS INNOCENT ENOUGH. HOWEVER, MANY OF YOU HAVE SAID, YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INTO DECIDING ANOTHER CITY'S DEVELOPMENT OR NON DEVELOPMENT THAT IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE THE SPRINKLER, THEN THEY CAN'T DEVELOP IT OR BUT WHAT THEY SAID AT THAT WORKSHOP WAS WHEN THEY WERE ASKED, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? THE DEVELOPER SAID, WELL, MOST LIKELY, THEY WOULD DO A WATER TANK. NEPTUNE BEACH HAS SEVERAL WATER TANKS. THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL. I THINK THAT WE ARE BEING SOUGHT AFTER BECAUSE OUR WATER IS CHEAPER, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ANY DEAL THAT YOU MAKE THAT YOU MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CHARGING THE SAME AMOUNT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN NEPTUNE BEACH FOR THE WATER. IF THIS IS STRICTLY, THEY JUST NEED IT FOR THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, HOWEVER, THEN THEY DID START TALKING ABOUT, IT WOULDN'T BE A SURPRISE IF THEN PUBLIX DID WANT TO GET RID OF THAT BEAUTIFUL GREEN TANK, AND THAT THEY WOULD BE COMING TO US TO ASK TO PROVIDE FIRE HYDRANTS. I UNDERSTAND THAT IN YOUR DISCUSSION THAT PART OF IT WAS WHETHER OR NOT IN OUR CODE, WE CAN PROVIDE THE WATER. I'M INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT WHEN THE CITY MANAGER SPEAKS ABOUT THE FIRE SUPPRESSION. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE ARE CONNECTED WITH NEPTUNE BEACH IN MANY WAYS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS AS FAR AS DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE OUR DEVELOPMENT, AND THEY NEED TO STAND ON THEIR OWN TWO FEET. THEY CAN'T BE LOOKING TO US. IF THEY ARE LOOKING TO US, THEN WE SHOULD GET THE SAME AMOUNT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY IN NEPTUNE BEACH. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MISS BARKER. >> AMY PALMER. >> GOOD EVENING, AMY PALMER. I'M A MEMBER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE, AND I'D JUST LIKE TO PROVIDE A FEW UPDATES OF OUR WORK TONIGHT. AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE HAD THE PLEASURE OF HAVING COMMISSIONER GRANT VISIT WITH US IN DIALOGUE, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE HIS INTEREST IN TRYING TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO CLEAR CUTTING, WHICH, OF COURSE, ANECDOTALLY, WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF CLEAR CUTTING HAPPENING AND ESPECIALLY REDEVELOPED LOTS. AS A RESULT OF THIS, WE ARE LOOKING AT HAVING A WORKSHOP OR TASK FORCE AND INVITING DEVELOPERS TO COME AND TALK WITH THE ESC TO TRY TO FIND SOLUTIONS AND LEARNING ABOUT CHALLENGES AND WHAT MIGHT INCENTIVIZE GREATER PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES ON THOSE LOTS. BUT FIRST, WE ARE FINALIZING OUR SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHAPTER 23, WHICH WILL INCLUDE GREATER PROTECTIONS FOR HERITAGE TREES, WHICH ARE, OF COURSE, OUR LARGEST AND OLDEST, MOST IMPORTANT TREES. [00:20:05] WE ALSO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR DESIGNATING A HISTORIC CORRIDOR FOR TREES AS ALLOWED THROUGH THE ORDINANCE IN CHAPTER 23 AT SEVENTH STREET ACCESS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO PUT FORWARD. ANYWAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT. >> THANK YOU, MISS PALMER. >> TERRY BRADSHAW KATE. YOU CAN SPEAK NOW OR DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING OR BOTH. >> I MUST SPEAK RIGHT HERE. >> WE CAN CALL YOU. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES. >> FIRST OFF, I WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT I'M HARD OF HEARING, SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, WE'LL HAVE TO WORK ON THAT. I WILL TELL YOU THE STORY ABOUT THE CAT GOT THE HEARING A, BUT I KNOW WE'RE NOT HERE ABOUT THAT TONIGHT. ANYWAY, ABOUT THE PROPERTY, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DEVELOPED. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH RODENTS AND THINGS, AND THE GRASS HASN'T BEEN CUT EVEN SINCE THE LAST MEETING WE'VE HAD, SO IT'S NOT BEING UP KEPT AT ALL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MAYBE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR STAY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF IT, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND IS IN THE EVENT THAT WE HAVE A NET OF FIRE, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE EASEMENT SO THAT THE FIREFIGHTERS CAN GET IN THERE AND FIGHT THE FIRE. ONE OF THE REASONS OUR BUILDING DIDN'T BURN DOWN WAS THE WIND WAS BLOWING TO THE NORTH I'M THE ONE THAT CAME UP AND TOLD ALL THAT I HAD HURRICANE WINDOWS AND DOORS AND SLIDING DOORS, AND THEY ALL CRACKED AND MELTED. BUT I WON'T TAKE A LOT OF YOUR TIME. BUT WE DO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE FIGHTING RODENTS IN OUR BUILDING NOW. MR. FORD, I'M SUPPOSED TO TELL YOU THAT I KNOW DEBBIE AND BILL. I'M TWO DOORS DOWN FROM MISS KAY'S UNIT. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. >> THANK YOU, MISS BRADSHAW. WAS IT CARRIE BRADSHAW SOMETHING OR? >> TERRY BRADSHAW KATE. >> KATE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MISS KATE. >> THE REST APPEAR TO WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF I'M NOT. THAT'S ALL NOW. >> THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE COURTESY OF THE FLOOR AND MOVE TO ITEM 2. NO, I'M SORRY. WE ALREADY DID THAT. MOVE TO ITEM 3, CITY MANAGEMENT REPORTS. [3. CITY MANAGER REPORTS] >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. HALL 3A IS THE 90 DAY CALENDAR. THE THING THAT I WILL POINT OUT IS ON AUGUST 21ST. CITY HALL WILL BE CLOSED DURING LUNCHTIME FOR EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION. IF YOU CAN ATTEND, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. ASIDE FROM THAT, I THINK YOU'VE MOSTLY SEEN THE CALENDAR AND STAFF RECOMMEND THAT YOU ACCEPT THE 90 DAY CALENDAR. >> NO CHANGES. YOU HAVE THE CALENDAR. >> WHERE IS MR. HOGENCAMP? I CAN'T SEE HIM. MR. HOGENCAMP IS GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON OUR PLANS FOR THE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M KEVIN HOGENCAMP, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER. WE ARE ON THE CUSP OF A MOMENTOUS OCCASION, THE HUNDREDTH BIRTHDAY OF OUR CITY. WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER A MULTI PRONGED CELEBRATION OF OUR RICH HISTORY WITH A SPECIAL NOD TO AMERICA'S 250TH BIRTHDAY. SINCE AB BECAME A CITY IN DECEMBER OF 1925, AND ELECTED ITS FIRST CITY COMMISSION IN AUGUST OF 26. WE'RE PLANNING A CELEBRATION THAT WAS STRETCHED FROM THIS DECEMBER 25 THROUGH AUGUST 2026. HERE'S A SNEAK PEAK OF WHAT WE'VE PENCILED IN SO FAR. THERE'S A LOT OF TWEAKING TO DO. WE INTEND TO HAVE A KICKOFF ON DECEMBER 4TH. THAT'S AT ARTISANS FAIR AT ADELE GRAGES CULTURAL CENTER. THAT IS THE BIRTHDAY OF OUR CITY. THE DATES ALIGNED SWIMMINGLY. ATTENDEES THERE CAN BROWSE A HOLIDAY MARKET, SEE A HISTORIC DISPLAY FROM BEACHES MUSEUM AND STEP BACK IN TIME AT A HISTORIC PHOTO BOOTH. WE'RE GOING TO ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU AND OTHER ATTENDEES TO WEAR PERIOD CLOTHES. WE'LL HAVE PERIOD MUSIC AND EXHIBITS HIGHLIGHTING OUR CITY'S FOUNDING. THEN TO RING IN THE NEW YEAR, WE HAVE A SPECIAL FIRST NIGHT CELEBRATION PLANNED ON DECEMBER 31ST. THIS IS THE FIRST TWO MAJOR SIGNIFICANT CENTENNIAL EVENTS. IT WILL BE A PROGRESSIVE EVENT. WE ANTICIPATE STARTING AT THREE AT DONNER PARK WITH A FAMILY FRIENDLY FESTIVAL WITH MUSIC AND CRAFTS AND GAMES, AND THEN COMING OVER TO JACK RUSSELL PARK FROM 6-9, [00:25:02] WHERE WE'LL HAVE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, HISTORIC STORYTELLING, AND FOOD TRUCKS, SERVING CUISINE FROM DIFFERENT DECADES. THEN OUR PLAN AT THE MOMENT IS TO MOVE TO THE BEACH FROM 9-11 FOR A COMMUNITY BEACH FIRE WITH MUSIC AND S'MORES, OF COURSE. THE FUN WILL CONTINUE THROUGH 2026, STARTING IN FEBRUARY. WE'LL HOST OUR MOVIES IN THE PARK WITH PATRIOTIC MOVIE, BEACHES VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK. IN MARCH, WE'RE IN THE EARLY STAGES OF PLANNING A VINTAGE BASEBALL GAME IN CLASSIC AMERICANA DAY HERE AT JACK RUSSELL PARK WITH PLAYERS IN VINTAGE UNIFORMS AND ANTIQUE CASUAL AND MORE. IN APRIL, LOOK FOR OUR SPECIAL CENTENNIAL THEME FLOAT AND THE OPENING OF THE BEACHES PARADE. ON JULY THE 4TH, WE PLAN TO HAVE THE SECOND OF OUR TWO MAJOR CENTENNIAL EVENTS AT BEACHES VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK, WHICH WILL BE A JOINT CITY OF AB BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION, AND AMERICA'S 250TH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION. THIS EVENT WILL FEATURE PATRIOTIC BAND, KIDS ACTIVITIES, FAMILY GAMES, AND A SPECIAL RECOGNITION CEREMONY FOR VETERANS AND LONGTIME RESIDENTS. THAT'S AN OVERVIEW OF WHERE WE ARE TO DATE. WE'LL CONTINUE TO WELCOME THE COMMUNITY'S IDEAS AND INPUT AS WE SOLIDIFY THIS GAME PLAN OVER THE NEXT MONTH OR SO. WE KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF WORK AHEAD. WE HAVE A STAFF THAT'S MORE CAPABLE THAN EVER, I THINK, AND WE HAVE INCREDIBLE RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS, AND WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL WORK TOGETHER TO DELIVER A TRULY MEMORABLE CELEBRATION. MYSELF OR MR. KILLINGSWORTH OR MISS ASKEW CAN TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. MAYOR. >> YES. >> WE'LL GO ON TO 3C, SO IN FRONT OF EACH OF YOU, YOU SHOULD HAVE A HIN METRIX. I'M NOT GOING TO RUN THROUGH ANY OF THESE REALLY. WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY IS SO WE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES AND HOW THEY MANAGE PERMITTING HINS. ALL OF THE ONES WE LOOKED AT THEY REQUIRE A SINGLE FAMILY. SOME OF THEM REQUIRE A SINGLE FAMILY WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZES. THERE IS AN INTEREST IN HAVING US LOOK AT A MORE CRITERIA BASED AND NOT A USE BASE. WHERE THEY HAD CRITERIA IN TERMS OF SETBACKS, DISTANCES FROM STRUCTURES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE CAPTURED THAT. I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION IS IF THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN GOING FORWARD WITH MAKING A CHANGE TO THE HIN ORDINANCE, MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE HAVE STAFF WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND DO ALL THE WORK-SHOPPING THERE, GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM THERE AND THEN BRING THAT FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION RATHER THAN WORKSHOP IT HERE AT THE COMMISSION. I GUESS REALLY ALL I NEED TO KNOW FROM THE COMMISSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO GO FORWARD AND DO THAT. >> I KNOW I WOULD. CITY MANAGER, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF'S WORK ON THE COMPARISON. THIS PAINTS THE PICTURE OF NOT ONLY OUR COMMUNITY, BUT THOSE THAT ARE SIMILAR TO OUR COMMUNITY. THIS WAS BROUGHT TO ME BY MULTIPLE RESIDENTS WITHIN MY DISTRICT WHO DO LIVE IN TOWN HOMES AND MULTIFAMILY HOMES, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE RESIDENCES IN MY DISTRICT. I APPRECIATE THE TIME, AND I WOULD LOVE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD TO DIVE IN AND SEE IF WE CAN'T FIND SOME WAY TO INCLUDE OUR MULTI FAMILY HOMES. >> I'M IN FAVOR [OVERLAPPING] >> THERE YOU GO. >> FIRE SUPPRESSION WILL GO FORTH. THEN THE LAST ITEM, MR. MAYOR IS, WHEN WE HAVE THE WORKSHOP. YOU STARTED OFF ASKING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A CONSENSUS, AND THEN I BELIEVE WE GOT SIDETRACKED AND NEVER CONCLUDED THAT. ASKING TONIGHT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A CONSENSUS FOR ME TO BRING FORTH A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ME TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS FOR A TRI-PARTY AGREEMENT TO SET FORTH THE STANDARDS TO PROVIDE FIRE SUPPRESSION FOR NEPTUNE BEACH AS THEY REQUESTED. >> GOOD. >> YES. >> YOU HAVE CONSENSUS. >> MAYOR. >> YES. >> I DID GET AN EMAIL FROM A RESIDENT, AND HE BROUGHT UP SOME GOOD POINTS. WHILE I'M OKAY WITH PROVIDING CONSENSUS TO THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF TO GO AHEAD AND DRAFT THAT, [00:30:01] I THINK HE MADE SOME GOOD POINTS. ONE, THE METER PLACEMENT, WHICH WE JUST HEARD FROM OUR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITY SAYING THAT IT HAS TO BE ON NEPTUNE BEACH SIDE. BUT AS WE LOOK INTO THE INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT. IT SHOULD BE BETWEEN TWO CITIES AND NOT THE DEVELOPER. THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND INCLUDING THE DEVELOPER IN ON THE AGREEMENT, IF WE DO GO FORWARD WITH THE AGREEMENT, WOULD BE THAT THEY COULD SELL THE PROPERTY AT ANY TIME, CHANGE HANDS. IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WHATEVER IS DRAFTED IN THAT AGREEMENT, THAT IT WOULD ONLY INCLUDE THE NEPTUNE BEACH AND ATLANTIC BEACH SO THAT THE CHANGE OF HANDS WOULD STAY BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES, WHETHER IT'S WITH THIS COMMISSION OR FURTHER COMMISSION, BUT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE PART OF THAT. >> YEAH, BUT HE STILL HAS TO BE IN THE NEGOTIATION. >> DOES HE? >> YES, BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] >> THEY COULD PUT THE AGREEMENT TO INVALIDATE THE AGREEMENT. >> CITY ATTORNEY, COULD YOU ELABORATE THERE? >> SURE. THE INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT, BY DEFINITION, IS BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES. HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE PROMISES, GUARANTEES, OR OBLIGATIONS, OR EVEN EXPENSES BY THE DEVELOPER, WE'LL HAVE TO INCLUDE THEM AS AN ACKNOWLEDGER, AGREED TO PARTY. ONE THING WE WOULD DO IN THAT SCENARIO, ALSO IS PUT A SUCCESSOR AND ASSIGNS PROVISION IN THERE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THAT PARTICULAR ENTITY WERE TO SELL OR CONVEY THE PROPERTY, THE NEXT PERSON OR ENTITY WOULD BE ALSO APPLIED. I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE ALL THREE PARTIES. IT'LL BE BETWEEN CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH, CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, BUT THERE'D BE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREED TO PROVISION BY THE DEVELOPER. AGAIN, IT WOULD BE OBLIGATORY FOR ANY OF THEIR SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS. IF THEY'VE SATISFIED ALL THEIR OBLIGATIONS OR THE PAYMENT OF ANY EXPENSES OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THEN THEY CEASE TO BE A PARTY AT SOME POINT. I SUPPOSE. >> THE WORRY OR CONCERN THAT THIS PROPERTY OWNER WOULD SELL TO ANOTHER PARTY, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE WHAT THE AGREEMENT IS? >> OH, NO. WE WOULD BE SPECIFIC TO MAKE SURE THAT IT RUNS WITH THE LAND FOR SURE. >> AS IT STANDS, WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT AGREEMENT, ONLY SHARING THE FIRE SUPPRESSION OR LINCOLN IN THE FIRE SUPPRESSION, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE HYDRANTS AND SPRINKLERS AND NOT POTABLE WATER. >> ONLY SPRINKLERS. THAT'S ALL THEY ASKED FOR IT. >> YES. >> CITY MANAGER WOULD THAT ALSO BE- >> IT'LL JUST BE FIRE SUPPRESSION. >> OKAY. >> THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING THAT WE WOULD- >> FIRE SUPPRESSION WOULDN'T INCLUDE THE HYDRANTS ON THAT SIDE? >> THEY MAY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE THE POINT TO WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING. THERE MIGHT BE HYDRANTS ON THEIR SIDE. BUT THE FIRE SUPPRESSION, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S FOR THE BUILDING SO THAT THE BUILDING CAN MEET THE FIRE CODE. WE WOULDN'T BE SELLING POTABLE WATER SO WE WOULD MONITOR THE METER, AND IF IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THE METER IS RUNNING EVERY MONTH AND WE HAVE A PROVISION WITHIN THE AGREEMENT AS TO HOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH THAT. WE LIKELY BE TURNING THE BOW BALL. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE A CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD ON BRINGING BACK A RESOLUTION. THANK YOU. REPORTS FROM CITY COMMISSIONERS. [4. REPORTS AND/OR REQUESTS FROM CITY COMMISSIONERS] LET'S BEGIN WITH COMMISSIONER BOLD. >> I'M STARTING OFF WITH MY I GOT TO SAY IT, RIGHT, AUGUST. WE'RE GOING THROUGH BUDGET. WE JUST HAD A BUDGET WORKSHOP. EVERYONE I'VE TALKED TO, I HAVEN'T FOUND ANYONE THAT'S AGAINST THIS, INCLUDING STAFF. WE KIND OF LAID OUT WHAT THIS PERSON WOULD DO. I THINK IT WOULD BRING VALUE ACROSS THE BOARD. LIKE I SAID, I DID A LITTLE ANALYSIS FOR HOW MUCH TIME WE SPEND ON THIS ISSUE ACROSS THE CITY. I THINK THAT WOULD PAY BACK IN SPADES. I'LL BE PUSHING THAT AS AN ENHANCEMENT AT THE FINAL BUDGET MEET, AND LIKE I SAID, I THINK THIS WOULD BE MONEY WELL SPENT. LIKE I SAID, I THINK I HAVE STAFF'S SUPPORT ON THAT, AND LIKE I SAID, I HAVEN'T TALKED TO ANYBODY THAT THINKS THAT'S A BAD IDEA. COMMISSIONER RING AND I WILL BE DOWN AT THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES STARTING THURSDAY. I KNOW I'VE ALREADY HAD SOME PEOPLE COME AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS SOMETHING I WANT TO FIND OUT. THERE'S A BIG ISSUES, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE STATE VERSUS THE CITIES ETC, SO IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC, MY EMAIL IS EASY TO FIND OR STOP ME. GIVE ME A CALL BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT. I WENT LAST YEAR. KIND OF INTERESTING. SOME CITIES I THINK ARE MORE SUCCESSFUL, AND SOME CITIES ARE LESS SUCCESSFUL THAN US IN PUSHING OUR AGENDA. MY LAST IS THE, I THOUGHT WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION WITH NEPTUNE BEACH. [00:35:02] I CALL IT EMERGENCY WATER WITH THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. REALLY, IT'S NOT WATER. IT'S A VALVE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT. IT IS A SINGLE VALVE, THERE IS A BIGGER ISSUE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT ALSO. SOMEBODY SAID THE THE BEACHES CITIES ARE CONNECTED. THEY ARE IN MANY WAYS THAT YOU DON'T THINK ABOUT. FOR INSTANCE, I THINK A GOOD EXAMPLE IS THEIR POLICE FORCE DOES BUSINESS IN AT LANG BEACH. WE DO BUSINESS IN NEPTUNE BEACH. FIRE. YOU CAN GO ACROSS THAT BOARD. WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT GOES ON. I THINK THERE'S A I'M TRYING TO LOOK FOR THE RIGHT WORD. THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT FIRE SUPPRESSION AND YOU TALK ABOUT A ONE TIME DEAL, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD FOR THEM TO HIDE A FIRE, I WOULD GUESS, AND I THINK THAT IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO WITH OUR NEIGHBOR, AND I DID ASK TWO QUESTIONS. I ASKED HIM, DOES THIS VALVE OPERATE BOTH WAYS? AND THEY SAID, YEAH. NUMBER 2, WHO IN THE AUDIENCE HAS NEVER SHOPPED AT PUBLIX, AND I DIDN'T GET ANYBODY TO RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT'S JUST A SNAPSHOT. I WILL LEAVE IT TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND I THINK IF HE WRITES WE WRITE A GOOD AGREEMENT THAT HOLD THE TENETS OF THE AGREEMENT TO WHAT WE WANT, WHAT THEY WANT, AND BE VERY, VERY SPECIFIC. IN FACT, WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT IF THE PROPERTY, ETC. THE DEEPER YOU GET INTO IT, THERE'S FOUR OR FIVE THINGS, AND I'M SURE OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER WILL BE VERY SPECIFIC ON WHAT AND WHEN THAT COMES INTO PLAY. THANKS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER GRANT. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M JUST GOING TO ADD TO WHAT BRUCE STARTED IN TALKING ABOUT THE WATER AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE DEBATING OR CONSIDERING WITH NEPTUNE BEACH. I THINK IF ANYBODY WHO WAS THERE AT THAT MEETING OR HAS SEEN THE TAPE, AND EVEN I WAS PART OF THE GROUP THAT LIKE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE REIMBURSED, ETC, AND MAKING A PREMIUM. THIS IS ABOVE AND BEYOND, ETC. BUT I THINK AS THAT MEETING WENT ON, I REALLY CHANGED MY PERSPECTIVE IN THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE MORE ABOUT COOPERATION WITH A SISTER CITY. WE DO RELY ON EACH OTHER FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. THEY DEFINITELY HAVE MUCH MORE COMMERCIAL BURDEN THAN WE DO, AND IF ANYBODY WHO LIVES HERE IN ATLANTIC BEACH WILL TELL YOU, THEY PREFER TO HAVE THAT COMMERCIAL FOOTPRINT IN NEPTUNE BEACH VIS ATLANTIC BEACH. NOT THAT WE'RE AGAINST COMMERCIAL, BUT HOW MANY PUBLIX DO WE WANT IN ATLANTIC BEACH. [NOISE] I ALSO THINK THAT THE AGREEMENT WILL BE SOUND, AND SOME OF YOU DON'T KNOW BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T HERE FOR THE BUDGET MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE AT FIVE, BUT WE HAD TROY FROM OUR WATER DEPARTMENT SPEAK, AND HE STATED, AND IT'S ON THE RECORD THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE NO INCREMENTAL EXPENSE TO HIM TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT PRESSURE THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR WILL OCCUR TO OUR ATLANTIC BEACH UTILITIES. NONE. I THINK IT'S JUST A REALLY GOOD THING TO DO. [NOISE] MOVING ON. I TALKED TO THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS THIS PAST WEEK ABOUT THE RFP THAT'S GOING TO GO OUT FOR THE FARMERS MARKET, AND IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY IDEAS ABOUT WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE FROM YOUR FARMERS MARKET, PLEASE SHARE THEM WITH ME OR THE CITY MANAGER. WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR A FOOTPRINT THERE THAT [NOISE] AND AN ACCOUNTING FOR SERVICES THEY'RE RECEIVING HAVE THE CITY BE COMPENSATED FOR THOSE, BUT ALSO DEAL WITH PARKING IN THE BEST MANNER POSSIBLE. THE LESSER THE FOOTPRINT, THE BETTER. ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WILL HELP US CO EXIST WITH THE FARMERS MARKET AND THE LITTLE LEAGUE, AT THE SAME TIME. WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO GET RID OF THE FARMERS MARKET IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. WE ALL LOVE THE FARMERS MARKET. BUT I WOULD ASK THAT IF YOU HAVE SOME IDEAS, PLEASE BRING THOSE FORWARD, AND LASTLY, I THINK THAT'S IT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> WELL, SINCE ALL THE LITTLE DARLINGS WENT BACK TO SCHOOL TODAY, THAT MEANS THAT BASEBALL IS WRITHING UP AGAIN. I GOT TO SAY, I HAVE A GRANDSON IN BASEBALL, BUT THIS CONTRACT NEEDS TO BE SETTLED THAT THE STALLING ON THEIR SIDE THAT THEY'RE USING CITY PROPERTY FOR, [00:40:01] WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CITY KIDS, AND THE LIABILITY ISSUES I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE HAPPY WITH THEM EITHER SO I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THAT CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE AND COME TO A CONCLUSION. >> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO ESE. I SUGGESTED WE USED THE TREE FUND TO PAY FOR THE ARBORIST, AND I WAS CHASTISED FOR THAT. WE WON'T USE THE TREE FUND FOR THE ARBORIST. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RING. >> I HAVE THREE THINGS. THE FIRST IS THAT WAS SUCH AN HONOR TO WATCH OFFICER ERIC KOHLER BEING SWORN IN THIS MORNING OR TODAY. BUT THIS MORNING, OUR ATLANTIC BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS OUTSIDE MY DAUGHTER'S BUS STOP, AND IT WAS JUST GREAT TO SEE. IT'S GREAT TO SEE OUR PRESENCE OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND I SUPPORT YOU, NOT JUST IN BUDGET SEASON, BUT I APPRECIATE SEEING YOU HERE AND SEEING YOU AROUND TOWN AT ALL THE PLACES AND WATCHING YOU BE SWORN IN. THE SECOND THING I HAVE IS ON MAIN STREET, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUDGET, THERE IS A SIDEWALK THERE BETWEEN LEVE AND DENTON ISLAND THAT IS IN NEED OF REPLENISHMENT. IT IS GROSSLY OVERGROWN, AND WITH THE HIGHLY TRAFFICKED AREA ON MAIN, BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT BE PART OF OUR BUDGET. THIS GO AROUND. A LOT OF CHILDREN DO TAKE THAT ONE LITTLE STRETCH OF ROAD SIDEWALK THERE TO GET TO AND FROM THE PARK AND FROM THEIR BUS STOP HOME. THE THIRD THING I WANTED TO ADDRESS WAS SENATE BILL 180 AND ACTUALLY WAS REMINDED BY ONE OF OUR AUDIENCE MEMBERS HERE. SENATE BILL 180 WAS JUST RECENTLY PASSED AND IT SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICTS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ABILITY TO MEND COMPREHENSIVE PLANS IN LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AFTER A DECLARED DISASTER. AS COMMISSIONER BOLLES MENTIONED, HE AND I WILL BOTH BE AT FLC THIS COMING UP WEEK, AND I PLAN ON ATTENDING A SESSION ON THIS AND JUST HOW IT WILL AFFECT AGAIN, OUR LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND OUR RIGHTS TO GOVERN LOCALLY. I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON EVERYONE'S FOREFRONT, SENATE BILL 180, AND HOW MUCH IT WILL ABSOLUTELY AFFECT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, AND THAT IS ALL. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I HAVE A COUPLE QUICK THINGS REGARDING ATLANTIC BEACH BASEBALL, GOOD POINT. I MET WITH THE HEAD OF ATLANTIC BEACH BASEBALL YESTERDAY, AND MR. KILLINGSWORTH JOINED ME ON THAT. I THINK WE'RE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT I HEAR YOU, AND IT NEEDS TO GET PUT TO BED. SECOND THING IS, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS I HOPE IT'S NOT PILING ON, BUT ON THE FIRE SUPPRESSION THING, IT IS, I BELIEVE, CLEAR TO ME FROM THIS COMMISSION THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE EITHER, NOT UNANIMOUS, BUT A SOLID AGREEMENT WHEN IT FINALLY COMES TO THE VOTE, THAT WE'RE NOT APPROVING THE SALE OF WATER TO NEPTUNE BEACH. WE ARE APPROVING FIRE SUPPRESSION ONLY. BUT IT DOES BEG THE QUESTION, WHAT COULD A FUTURE COMMISSION DO? THAT'S UP TO GOVERNANCE. I WON'T BE THE MAYOR FOREVER, SO WHO KNOWS WHAT A FUTURE COMMISSION WOULD DO, BUT A COUPLE OF POINTS HAVE BEEN RAISED, THE ACTUAL EQUIPMENT TO SELL WATER ON A REGULAR BASIS, THE METERS AND SO ON, WOULD BE DIFFERENT. BUT I ALSO HEARD FROM A CITIZEN ABOUT CHARGING MORE, AND WE ALREADY DO THAT AS A MATTER OF COURSE. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO JUST TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT VOTING FOR THE SALE OF WATER TO THE CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH. I WILL SUPPORT FIRE SUPPRESSION AS LONG AS WE HAVE A GOOD AGREEMENT THAT PROTECTS THE CITIZENS OF ATLANTIC BEACH. BUT IF IN THE FUTURE, THE CHOICE WAS MADE TO SELL WATER TO ATLANTIC BEACH, AND IT WON'T BE BY ME. BUT IF IT EVER WAS, WHICH ALREADY CHARGE THOSE USERS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS OF ATLANTIC BEACH, A 25% SURCHARGE, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S LIMITED TO 25% BY FLORIDA STATUTE, IS THAT CORRECT? I AM WELL AWARE OF THE FACT THAT NEPTUNE BEACH CHARGES A LOT MORE FOR WATER, AND BY GOLLY, WE SHOULD CHARGE THEM MORE THAN WE CHARGE OURSELVES, BUT OUR LIMIT WOULD BE 25%. THOSE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE MOVE FORWARD ON THAT. THEN FINALLY, THE QUESTION OR THE ISSUE BROUGHT FORTH BY THE CITIZEN REGARDING THE 20TH STREET PROJECT, I'M NOT CLEAR, AND I WONDER IF I COULD GET CONSENSUS FROM THIS COMMISSION. [00:45:04] I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING AND REVIEW WHAT WE IN FACT HAVE GIVEN TO THE CITIZEN TO COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUESTS OR WHY WE SHOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUESTS BEFORE WE DO ANY FURTHER WORK SO MY QUESTION TO YOU, MR. CITY MANAGER, IS A TWO WEEK DELAY. IS THERE ANYTHING PENDING AT THAT SITE BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING ANYWAY. >> NO, MR. MAYOR. WE DON'T HAVE THE GENERATOR YET. >> CAN WE ALL AGREE THAT WE'D LIKE TO REVIEW THAT? I THINK THIS BECOMES EVEN POTENTIALLY A TEMPLATE FOR HOW WE CONDUCT BUSINESS GOING FORWARD SO I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST OF THE CITIZEN, WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN SUPPLIED, AND WHETHER WE DO OR DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE THINGS BEING REQUESTED, AND IF WE DON'T AGREE, WHY NOT? ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? >> QUESTION. BILL, SO THE CITY IS NOT SPENDING ANY MONEY BECAUSE OF THIS DELAY AT ALL. THERE'S NO RAMIFICATIONS OF DELAYING FOR TWO WEEKS. >> NO. BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE GENERATOR, SO WE CAN'T INSTALL THE GENERATOR. >> THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE LOSE BY IT. >> CORRECT. >> GOOD. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON THEN. CLOSING THAT. [7.A. Appointments to Arts, Recreation, and Culture Committee] WE'LL MOVE TO APPOINTMENTS TO ARTS RECREATION, AND CULTURAL COMMITTEE, THE ARCC, AND I PRESIDED OVER THAT MEETING THIS PAST WEEK. WHAT'S HAPPENED, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING IN OUR PACKET, BUT WE AGREED ON A PREVIOUS RESOLUTION. IS RESOLUTION? >> ORDINANCE. >> ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. BY ORDINANCE, WE INCREASED THE MEMBERSHIP 7-9 MEMBERS SO WE SELECTED THOSE MEMBERS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THIS COMMISSION. THE FIRST ONE WE SELECTED WAS AN EXISTING ALTERNATE MEMBER, CURTIS WINTER, AND WE RECOMMEND HIM TO FULFILL THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM FOR THE NUMBER 8 MEMBER, AND THEN WE INTERVIEWED A NUMBER OF PEOPLE FOR THE FINAL POSITION OF NUMBER 9, AND WE HAD SOME REALLY GOOD CANDIDATES, AND I HOPE IF THEY'RE WATCHING THIS, THEY KNOW HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE THEM. BECAUSE WE COULD ONLY PICK ONE, AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO APPOINT INGRID MCCAULEY AS THE NUMBER 9 MEMBER TO THE RC, AND SHE IS FROM DISTRICT 1306. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING FORMAL HERE, OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO MOVE ON THIS? IS THERE ANYTHING MORE THAT I'M MISSING? >> THERE WERE FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I'LL JUST BRING UP WHY THERE WAS FOUR. WHEN YOU DID THE ORDINANCE, THERE WAS NO SPECIFICATION AS TO WHEN THE TERMS WOULD START AND STOP. IT JUST SAT A THREE YEAR TERM SO WE ASKED THE BOARD MEMBER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE TERM AND SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE THREE COMING OFF THE SAME YEAR STAGGERING. THAT'S HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO ASSIGN EIGHT AND NINE THE TERMS THAT THEY DID. THEN WITH CURTIS WINTER, LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, THEY WANTED TO GIVE HIM THAT NUMBER 8 POSITION AND ALSO THE ONE AFTER THAT BECAUSE THAT IS LESS THAN A YEAR THAT HE'S SERVING, SO THEY WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND SAY THAT HE WOULD SERVE THE FOLLOWING TERM, AND THEN AS THE MAYOR SAID ON ENGLAND MCCAULEY, SHE'S GOING TO BE THE NUMBER 9 POSITION, BUT SHE WON'T EXPIRE UNTIL 2027 SO WE DIDN'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE SUBSEQUENT TERM. AS FAR AS ANYTHING, I WOULD LIKE A MOTION, AND YOU COULD JUST SIMPLY APPROVE THE FOUR BMRC RECOMMENDATIONS THAT IS SHOWN ON THE STAFF REPORT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. >> YEAH, SORRY. >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE FOUR APPOINTMENTS ON THE ART COMMITTEE. >> WELL, IT'S FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH INCLUDED TWO APPOINTMENTS AND THEN TWO TERM SUGGESTIONS. >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ART COMMITTEE EFFECTED IMMEDIATELY. >> SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY WITH AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVING TO ITEM 8, [8.A. Resolution No. 25-52] A RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-52, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, NAMING THE NEWLY ACQUIRED BUILDING AT 100 WEST FIRST STREET IN ATLANTIC BEACH, MARSH OAKS COMMUNITY CENTER IN HONOR OF THE MARSH OAKS COMMUNITY, [00:50:04] PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MR. KILLINGSWORTH. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE'VE BEEN UNOFFICIALLY CALLING THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER, MARSH OAKS COMMUNITY CENTER. WE TOOK THAT NAME, VETTED IT THROUGH THE CITY'S BUILDING NAMING POLICY AND TOOK IT TO ARC FOR RECOMMENDATION. DID RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY NAME IT MARSH OAKS COMMUNITY CENTER. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-52. >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-52. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY WITH AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 8B, RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-66, [8.B. Resolution No. 25-66] A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF AN EQUIPPED POLICE MOTORCYCLE FOR $24,207.35 FROM ADAM HARLEY DAVIDSON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, MR. KILLINGSWORTH. >> THANK YOU, MR. MARRIS, SIR, OUR TRAFFIC UNIT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS A MOTORCYCLE OFFICER AND A DUI ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. THE DEPARTMENT WISHES TO EXPAND THAT NOT PERSONNEL, BUT TO HAVE BOTH OFFICERS ON MOTORCYCLES. THEY'RE REQUESTING TO PURCHASE A MOTORCYCLE FROM EXISTING FUNDS FOR $24,207.35. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 25-66 TO A PURCHASE THE ADDITIONAL MOTORCYCLE. MY GROUP OF RESOLUTION TO APPROVE 25-66. LET'S SEE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES. >> PERHAPS OFFICER CHASE WOULD KNOW. IS THERE NOT EXTRA TRAINING TO QUALIFY THE SECOND MOTORCYCLE DRIVER? YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR MONEY FOR THAT? >> [INAUDIBLE] PLEASE. YES, THERE IS A REQUIRED EXTRA TRAINING. THERE IS NO FEE FOR THAT TRAINING. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ATTEND THAT. THAT'S ACTUALLY COMING UP HERE IN ABOUT A MONTH. >> IS THAT MORE THAN JUST THE MOTORCYCLE SAFETY COURSE? >> YES, IT'S A TWO WEEK COURSE. >> THAT WAS PRETTY INTENSE JUST BY IT. >> YES. TO BE ONE OF THE HARDEST TRAINING COURSES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. >> WOW. >> YES, COMMISSIONER. >> I APOLOGIZE IF THIS IS A SILLY QUESTION, BUT DO THEY ALSO HAVE A PATROL CAR, OR DO THEY JUST HAVE THE MOTORCYCLE? >> THEY WOULD HAVE THE CAR. THIS WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL VEHICLE SPECIALIZED SPECIFICALLY FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT THAT THEY WOULD USE IN THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES. THEY DO HAVE THAT PATROL CAR FOR TIMES WHEN ADS WEATHER OR IF THEY MAKE AN ARREST OR PICK SOMEONE ANYWHERE ON A MOTORCYCLE. THEY STILL WOULD HAVE THAT PATROL CAR? >> I JUST ASKED BECAUSE YOUR PATROL CARS ARE QUITE EXPENSIVE, AND I THOUGHT, WOW, MOTORCYCLE IS SO MUCH CHEAPER, MAYBE THEY COULD JUST SWITCH THEM OUT. >> WELL, THERE'S JUST DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ALL THAT KIND OF. >> BUT THAT'S NOT A THING ANYWAY BECAUSE THEY WOULD NEED A PATROL CAR AS WELL? ON TOP OF MOTORCYCLE. GOOD TO KNOW. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WE GOT A MOTION IN A SECOND. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY WITH AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. MOVING TO ITEM 10A, [10.A. Public Hearing - APP25-0004 - Appeal of a decision of the Community Development Board (CDB) for variance ZVAR25-0010 at 1025 Beach Avenue] OUR PUBLIC HEARING ON APP 25-0004, APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR VARIANCE ZVAR 25-0010 AT 10:25 BEACH AVENUE. FIRST, WE'LL DISCLOSE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, IF ANY, COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE NONE. NEXT IS CITY ATTORNEY PROCEDURAL REMINDERS. >> SURE. THE GENERAL FORMAT IS STAFF WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION. AFTER THAT STAFF PRESENTATION, THE APPLICANT WILL BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY. TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION FIRST, THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION. THEY'D HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THEN AFTER ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY REBUT ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, LIMITED TO THOSE ISSUES. AFTER THAT, THE COMMISSION WILL MAKE ITS CONSIDERATION AND ASK ANY QUESTIONS, DO YOU PLEASE? AS YOU JUST MENTIONED, BECAUSE IT'S AN APPEAL, IT'S A QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER. A COUPLE OF FORMALITIES, [00:55:02] ONE, AND YOU'VE ALREADY GONE OVER THAT, AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS THAT ANY COMMISSIONER MAY HAVE HAD WITH ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT, YOU'D HAVE TO BRIEFLY STATE WHEN WHO YOU SPOKE TO AND WHAT BRIEFLY THE SUBJECT WAS ABOUT. THEN LASTLY, BECAUSE IT'S QUASI JUDICIAL, THE DECISION, THE ACTION, THE CONSIDERATION MUST BE BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DECISION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY FACT BASED TESTIMONY OR EXPERT TESTIMONY AND NOT THE GENERALIZED CONCERNS OR OPINIONS OF A GENERAL MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.WITH THAT, TURN IT BACK TO YOU. >> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL SWEAR IN ALL THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER. IF YOU'RE SPEAKING AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU'RE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OR AGAINST THE REQUEST FOR THIS VARIANCE, RAISE YOUR HAND. WILL YOU TAKE CARE OF THAT? >> YOUR RESPONSE WILL BE, I DO. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE SWORN IN. JUST A LITTLE GUIDANCE HERE. AS WAS ALREADY DESCRIBED, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CITY STAFF GIVE AN OVERVIEW. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION FOR EITHER THE APPLICANT AND OR THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVES. WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND THEN WE'LL GET IN AND THEN WE'LL HAVE CLOSING COMMENTS, AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO COMMISSION DELIBERATION. WHEN WE GET TO COMMISSION DELIBERATION, YOU NO LONGER HAVE A SAY UNLESS WE'RE CALLING ON YOU. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW IF YOU'RE THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE, IF WE CALL ON YOU, YOU CAN HAVE A SAY. BUT IF WE DON'T, YOU'RE OUT. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE YOU'VE DONE YOUR PRESENTATION UP THROUGH THE CLOSING COMMENTS IN THE REBUTTAL. WITH THAT, AMANDA, TAKE IT AWAY. >> IF I MAY, JUST PROCEDURALLY REAL QUICK. I DEFER TO AMANDA ON THIS, BUT YOU'VE GOT TWO APPEALS BEFORE YOU, BUT I BELIEVE THEY'RE BASED ON THE SAME CORPUS OF FACTS OR WHAT HAVE YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE WE MIGHT HAVE A COMBINED STAFF PRESENTATION, PERHAPS COMBINED HEARING, AND THEN JUST TAKE TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS WHEN THE TIME COMES. YES. I THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING, AMANDA, ASKEW, THE NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR. TONIGHT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT APPEAL 25-0004 AND APPEAL 25-005. IT IS FOR 1025 AND 1039 BEACH AVENUE. THIS IS A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE ORDER OF DENIAL FOR ZVAR 25-0010 AND ZVA R 25-0011 FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS. SOME SITE CONTEXTS. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL GENERAL MULTIFAMILY. IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BEACH AVENUE, OCEAN FRONT, AND ONE OF THE PROPERTIES IS ACTUALLY AT THE CORNER OF 10TH AND BEACH, AND IT CURRENTLY EXISTS AS TWO VACANT LOTS. YOU CAN SEE THERE THAT THE AREA IN YELLOW IS AN L SHAPED PARCEL. A PORTION OF THE PARCEL THAT FACES BEACH AVENUE IS CURRENTLY CONCRETE. IT'S TECHNICALLY NOT BUILDABLE. IT DOESN'T MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR SETBACKS THERE. THE BUILDABLE PORTION OF THAT PARCEL IS THE LONG AREA THAT YOU SEE. 1039 IS THE AREA SHOWN IN BLUE. AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, I'M GOING TO GIVE BOTH OF THESE PRESENTATIONS COMBINED, HOWEVER, THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN SEPARATELY. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD DENIED THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOUND IN SECTION 24-108(E)(3)(A). THEY HELD A HEARING ON MAY 20TH. THEY MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST. IT WAS PASSED WITH A 6-0 VOTE. THEY FOUND THE REQUEST DID NOT MEET ANY GROUNDS FROM SECTION 24-65(C), WHICH IS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING THE GROUNDS FOR APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE. A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY. IN JUNE OF 2022, THERE WAS A FIRE THAT SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PROPERTIES WERE DEMOLISHED. WE DO HAVE A SECTION OF THE CODE, 24-85 AND 84 THAT ALLOW NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED BY A NATURAL EVENT TO BE RECONSTRUCTED WITHIN THAT SAME FOOTPRINT. PROVIDED THAT RECONSTRUCTION OCCURS WITHIN ONE YEAR. THE APPLICANTS OR NOT THE APPLICANT, [01:00:02] THE EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS WERE INFORMED ABOUT THAT GRANDFATHERING STATUS AND THAT TIME PERIOD DID EXPIRE. 1025 BEACH AVENUE HAD SOME PREVIOUS NONCONFORMITIES AND SOME OF THOSE ARE CURED BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURES WERE DEMOLISHED. THEY ACTUALLY HAD SEVERAL UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. FOUR TO FIVE WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE HOW MANY UNITS WERE THERE. AGAIN, THEY WERE EXISTING NONCONFORMITY. IT WAS NONCONFORMING BECAUSE IT DIDN'T MATCH THE DENSITY REGULATIONS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THEY HAD A GARAGE APARTMENT THAT WAS ALSO NOW DEMOLISHED, BUT IT DIDN'T MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS, AND IT RECEIVED A VARIANCE IN 2020, IN 2005 TO REDUCE THE 15 FOOT COMBINED SIDE YARD SETBACKS, AND IT ALLOWED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND A SECOND STORY BALCONY WITHIN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD APPROVED IT, SAYING THAT IT SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE EXISTING SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTS OR THE FOOTPRINT. 1025 BEACH AGAIN, THEY ARE REQUESTING SOME RELIEF FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS. THEY ARE PROPOSING A 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING CONDOMINIUMS AND A 5.6 SETBACK. I CALL THAT THE INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE, THAT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY LINE SHARED WITH A NEW HOME OR THE POTENTIAL NEW HOME AT 109 BEACH AVENUE. HERE'S A PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE SETBACKS. AGAIN, THE 5 FOOT IS THE SOUTHERLY SIDE YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO THE CONDOMINIUMS, AND THE 5.6 WOULD BE AN INTERNAL SETBACK ADJACENT TO 1039 BEACH AVENUE. 1039 BEACH AVENUE, HAD SOME NONCONFORMITIES AS WELL. IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, WHICH IS 75 FEET. IN THE EXISTING WHEN THE HOME WAS THERE, THE PROPERTY DID NOT MEET THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS. IT WAS CONSTRUCTED APPROXIMATELY 1938. THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE HAS. HERE'S A COPY OF A SURVEY SHOWING THE OLD PROPERTY THAT WAS THERE PRIOR TO THE FIRE, AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S A SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED SETBACKS. AGAIN, OUR CODE DOES ALLOW EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES TO STAY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY ARE EXPANDED OR DEMOLISHED. 1039 IS SEEKING SIMILAR SETBACK RELIEF. THEY ARE SEEKING A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS, A REDUCTION OF DOWN TO 4 FEET FOR THAT INTERNAL SIDE YARD, AND THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN THE NEW PROPOSED HOME AT 10:25, AND THEN A 3.6 SIDE YARD SETBACK TO THE NORTH OR THE EXISTING HOME THAT'S THERE TODAY. AGAIN, HERE'S A SITE PLAN DEPICTING THAT WHERE THE 4 FOOT SETBACK IS THAT SHARED WITH THE NEW PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE 3.6 TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. HERE'S A CONCEPTUAL RENDERING THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THEIR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION THERE. I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT THE HOUSE'S WIDTH WISE WOULD LOOK LIKE. AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS A VERY NARROW PROPERTY, BOTH OF THEM ARE VERY NARROW AND VERY LONG. THIS IS EXISTING STREET VIEW TODAY. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOTS. RESPECTIVELY, THE NORTHERN LOT, WHICH IS 1039 IS 30 FEET IN WIDTH, AND 1025 DOES THAT HAVE THAT L SHAPED PORTION, BUT THE BUILDABLE AREA IS 33 FEET IN WIDTH. THE GROUNDS FOR APPROVAL. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE APPEAL FOR BOTH OF THEM. BUT IN ORDER TO LOOK AT THAT, WE LOOK AT THE CODE, WHICH IS 24-65. IT HAS SIX GROUNDS THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING A VARIANCE. EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS NEAR THE PROPERTY SURROUNDING CONDITIONS ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IMPACTING THE PROPERTY DISPARAGELY FROM NEARBY PROPERTIES. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, PREVENTING THE REASON REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY, OS EFFECTS REGULATIONS ENACTED AFTER THE PLATTING OR AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT IRREGULAR LOT SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY WARRANTING SPECIAL CONSIDERATION, SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE OF RECORD, WARRANT VARIANCE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. IF YOU REVIEW AND VOTE ON THIS ON THOSE CRITERIA, IF YOU VOTE TO APPROVE THE APPEAL, YOU'RE BASICALLY APPROVING THE VARIANCE, AND IF YOU VOTE TO DENY THE APPEAL, YOU WOULD NOT BE APPROVING THE VARIANCE. ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR STAFF. [01:05:04] >> I HAVE. >> YES. WELL I'M GOING TO WAIT. LET'S THE APPLICANT PRESENT FIRST. LET'S SEE WHERE WE HAVE HERE. APPLICANT PRESENTATION. >> GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS NATHAN BUSSY. I'M A CERTIFIED GENERAL CONTRACTOR. MY COMPANY, BILL PATH, WE PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL PRECONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN SERVICES. I'M ALSO A RESIDENT HERE IN ATLANTA BEACH, SO I'M VERY AWARE AS WE DESIGN HOMES, JUST HOW IMPORTANT THE FABRIC OF OUR COMMUNITY IS AND HOW SPECIAL THIS IS. WE WERE HIRED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO RESTORE THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING CONSTRUCTABILITY OR DESIGN. I AM GOING TO ASK MY COLLEAGUE NATHAN GRAY TO COME UP AND ACTUALLY PRESENT THE HARDSHIP AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO SEEK RELIEF FROM. >> MY NAME IS ALSO DATHAN, BUT I'M NATHAN GRAY. I'M A LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER HERE IN JACKSONVILLE, AND I ALSO DEVELOP PROPERTY IN ATLANTIC BEACH. I DON'T KNOW IF POSSIBLE, WE COULD PUT UP THE APPLICATION THAT WE SUBMITTED AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS IN THERE. IF NOT, THAT'S FROM THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. >> NO PROBLEM. AS MENTIONED, WE'RE HERE TO REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN AN APPEAL. MANDA MADE A GOOD OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION. I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH WHAT I PUT TOGETHER HERE, AND YOU CAN GO FROM THERE. IN APRIL OF 2025, BOTH APPLICANTS AUTHORIZE NTH AND BUSSEY TO SUBMIT A VARIANCE APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2465 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO REQUEST RELIEF TO CONSTRUCT A REASONABLY WIDE HOME ON EACH OF THEIR OCEAN FRONT WADS. IN THAT APPLICATION, WE MADE AN ERROR IN THE 1025 APPLICATION. WE SAID IT WAS 30 FEET WIDE, AND WE FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS IN FACT 33. THIS INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION MADE WITH THIS ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE IN MIND. OF COURSE, AT SOME POINT, AS MENTIONED, BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES SUFFERED A FIRE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED INTO THE PROXIMITY AND THE NEARBY STRUCTURES, I MEAN TO SAY. OF COURSE, THEY HAD ONE YEAR TO RECONSTRUCT THAT. OF COURSE, WITH COVID AND CCCL STANDARDS, IT WAS VERY UNREALISTIC FOR THE OWNERS TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY HAD THERE. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS. REALLY, THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS TO SHOW THE MASSING, AND WHAT I WILL DISCUSS LATER ON IN THIS PRESENTATION IS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SPECIFIC SETBACKS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. OF COURSE, IN THERE, YOU'LL SEE THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN THAT WAS FILED WITH A VARIANCE, AS WELL AS THIS REVISED WITH THE ADDITIONAL 3D. THE REVISED CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS EACH LOT CONTAINING 22.5-FOOT-WIDE RESIDENTS WITH A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK TO THE CONDOMINIUMS, 9.5 FEET OF TOTAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE RESIDENTS, WITH 3.5 FEET THEN THE RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH. FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING, AND AS STAFF SAID, THE PARKING LOT OR THE PARKING PAD IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR RELIEF IN THIS, AND WE DON'T CONSIDER IT DEVELOPABLE. FOR THE CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS APPLICATION, WE'RE REALLY ONLY DISCUSSING FOR 1025 AT LEAST THAT BUILDABLE SECTION. I JUST ALSO WANT TO MAKE A QUICK NOTE. IN THIS RGM DISTRICT, THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS ACTUALLY 40 FEET. IT'S NOT 75 FEET. WE'RE REALLY NOT THE ORIGINAL PLATE. WE'RE NOT TOO FAR OFF FROM THE STATED ZONING MINIMUM CURRENTLY. SOMETHING ALSO TO MENTION IS THAT BOTH PROPERTIES WERE PLATTED BACK IN 1913 AND RECORDED IN 1914. AGAIN, THESE ARE 30-FOOT PLATES, ALMOST MORE THAN 100 YEARS OLD AT THIS POINT. WHEN WE CAME BEFORE THE VARIANCE BOARD, THE REQUEST WAS MADE TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO. UNDER THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, 1039, 50% OF THEIR LOT WIDTH IS RESTRICTED BY THE SIDE SETBACKS, 1025, IT'S LIKE 40-SOMETHING PERCENT OF THEIR LOT WIDTH IS RESTRICTED BY THE SIDE SETBACKS. SIMPLY, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS OBTAIN A REASONABLE FOOTPRINT. THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT, I USED TO LIVE IN A TOWNHOME. THAT TOWNHOME IS A BUILDER-GRADE TOWN, AND I BOUGHT IT FOR $200,000, THAT PROPERTY IS 18 FEET WIDE. JUST TO GIVE A PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THAT 1057 BEACH PROPERTY, [01:10:02] WHICH IS THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, I BELIEVE, IS UNDER CONTRACT FOR MORE THAN $6 MILLION. THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO BE SAID. THE APPLICANT ALSO MADE, OR I GUESS, OUR PRESENTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, WE MADE RELEVANT COMMENTS AS TO THE OWNER'S INABILITY TO REBUILD THE PROPERTY, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER. ANOTHER THING I'D LIKE TO BRING UP IS THE DENSITY OF WHAT I CALL THE CONDO AND TOWNHOME CLUSTER THAT SITS DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES. ANOTHER THING TO MENTION, I RECOGNIZE THAT OTHER VARIANCE APPLICATIONS AND OTHER APPROVALS ARE NOT GROUNDS TO MAKE THIS APPROVAL. I RECOGNIZED THAT, BUT BACK IN 1978, 885 BEACH RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE, THEY CAME TO CITY COMMISSION TO GET A PUD, AND THE REASON FOR THAT WAS BECAUSE THE LAND USE REGULATIONS HAD CHANGED OVER TIME, EFFECTIVELY MAKING THEIR PROPERTY UNDEVELOPABLE. THEY WERE IN A VERY SIMILAR PREDICAMENT THAT WE'RE IN TODAY. >> EXCUSE ME, WHAT ADDRESS WAS THAT? >> THAT'S 885 BEACH, AND THE PUD WAS APPROVED MAY 22ND, 1978. CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS DO PREVENT OWNERS FROM SPLITTING LOTS OF RECORD, AND THEN COMING TO THE BOARD AND REQUESTING A VARIANCE. JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT BY GRANTING THIS APPEAL FOR THE VARIANCE, YOU'RE NOT SETTING A STANDARD THAT WOULD ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE TO THEN BUY A 60-FOOT LOT THAT HAS DOUBLE PLAT, TEAR IT DOWN, GO BACK TO THE PLAT, AND TRY AND DO WHAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY ASKING FOR HERE TODAY. I JUST WANT TO ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING, IT WASN'T OBVIOUS THAT THESE ARE TWO OWNERS THAT HAVE OWNED THESE PROPERTIES FOR MORE THAN 20, 25 YEARS. WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING FOR THIS REQUEST BECAUSE WE'RE HERE TO BUILD ON THEIR PROPERTIES. WE'RE SIMPLY HERE ASKING TO ENFORCE THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS. THERE'S NO KNOWN DEVELOPER AT PLAY. WE'RE SIMPLY HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS. WE ATTENDED THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD THERE WERE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE TOWNHOMES THAT ARE DIRECTLY SOUTH OF 1025, SEVERAL CONCERNS OF FIRES, WHICH WE COMPLETELY RECOGNIZE, AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO AVOID THAT CONVERSATION. WE WANT TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION THERE TO MAKE BOTH PARTIES FEEL COMFORTABLE. WE WANT TO ALSO RECOGNIZE, HOWEVER, THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL THREE FEET THAT WE WERE ABLE TO WE MISGUIDINGLY FILED WITHOUT THAT THREE FEET. WITH THIS ADDITIONAL THREE FEET, WE'RE ABLE TO MAINTAIN CODE MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET WITH THAT 1025 AND THE TOWNHOME CLUSTER SETBACK. ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD. WE MADE ALL RELEVANT FACTS AWARE TO THE BOARD. THEY SAID THAT WE DIDN'T MEET ANY OF THE CRITERIA AND REFERENCED TO SECTION 2465. THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE IN THIS REALLY, THEY ALL RELATE TO SECTIONS 2, 4, AND 6 FOR THE GROUNDS OF GRANTING THE VARIANCE. AGAIN, I JUST CLARIFIED IN HERE WHAT WE ARE, IN FACT, ASKING, GIVEN THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE DISCREPANCY WITH THE WIDTH. THE FIRST POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT THE APPLICANT FOR THE VARIANCE OF SIDE SETBACKS IS REQUIRED DUE TO THE SUBSTANDARD SIZE OF LOT OF RECORD. IN SECTION 2465F DEFINES THE JUSTIFICATIONS, AS I JUST MENTIONED, TWO ITEMS LISTED ON THERE ARE ONEROUS EFFECT OF REGULATION ENACTED AFTER PLATTING OR AFTER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS UPON THE PROPERTY, AND ITEM 6, WHICH STATES SUBSTANDARD SIZE OF A LOT OF RECORD WARRANTING A VARIANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE REASONABLE USE OF PROPERTY. AGAIN, BOTH OF THESE LOTS WERE PLATTED IN 1913, WELL BEFORE THE INCLUSION OF ANY SIDE SETBACKS INTO A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WERE LIKELY INCLUDED AROUND THE 1970S. THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURES ON THESE PROPERTIES, WHICH WERE BUILT NEAR THE TIME OF PLATTING, REPRESENT THIS HAVING SETBACKS THAT WERE LESS THAN TWO FEET IN SOME INSTANCES. ALSO, 1025 BEACH CONTAINED MULTIPLE DWELLINGS PREVIOUSLY, WHICH WERE GRANDFATHERED IN, AND IF THIS APPEAL WAS GRANTED, OF COURSE, THERE'LL ONLY BE ONE DWELLING. THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ONLY ALLOW FOR A NARROW HOME, AS I MENTIONED, THAT 15-18 FEET, BUT BUILDING FOOTPRINT, WHICH WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A BUILDER RAID TOWN HOME. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE REASONABLE USE OF A PROPERTY ON OCEANFRONT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE PERCENTAGE OF THE LOT THAT IS BEING RESTRICTED BY THE SIDE SETBACKS. THE CURRENT LISTING PRICE FOR THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY NORTH OF 1039, AS I MENTIONED, IT WAS 7.5. IT'S NOW UNDER CONTRACT. THE OWNERS BELIEVE THAT THE LDRS ARE CLEARLY INHIBITING THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY AND THEIR INABILITY TO SELL IT. THE APPLICANTS HAVE MARKETED THE COMBINED LOTS TOGETHER FOR, I BELIEVE IT'S MORE THAN TWO YEARS. [01:15:02] IT'S COMING UP ON THREE YEARS. I JUST WANT TO ALSO MAKE NOTE THAT IN THE VARIANCE MEETING, IT WAS SAID, WELL, WHY DON'T THESE OWNERS COME TOGETHER AND TRY AND DO SOME TYPE OF DUPLEX TOWNHOME? WELL, IN FACT, THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. THEY HAVE BEEN IN AN AGREEMENT WITH ONE ANOTHER FOR OVER TWO YEARS. SOMEBODY THAT WOULD BUY THEIR COMBINED PARCEL COULD EITHER BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OR THEY COULD BUILD A DUPLEX TOWNHOME STRUCTURE. I HAVE JANE SHIELDS IN HERE TODAY. I WOULD SAY SHE'S ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT REELERS IN OUR MARKETPLACE, AS WELL AS ME BEING A REALER. WE WOULD BOTH SAY, THE PROSPECT OF SOMEBODY COMING TO BUILD A DUPLEX TOWNHOME ON OCEANFRONT PROPERTY IS VERY UNLIKELY, AND THE APPLICANT SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO THAT STANDARD, EITHER. ANOTHER THING TO MENTION MY SECOND POINT AND MY LAST POINT IN THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS OVER TIME HAVE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BOTH PROPERTIES TO PURSUE ANY ALTERNATIVE USES. AT SOME POINT IN 1980, IN THE 2005 FUTURE LAND USE MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE DONE, THE FUTURE LAND USE WAS MADE RESIDENTIAL, LOW-DENSITY. OF COURSE, WE DON'T SEE THAT IN REALITY WITH THE CONDO TOWNHOME CLUSTER RIGHT NEXT DOOR. IT'S CLEARLY NOT LOW DENSITY. I BELIEVE THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE ONEROUS EFFECT OF REGULATIONS ENACTED AFTER PLATTING. AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY IS STILL ZONED RGM. AT SOME POINT, IT WAS INTENDED TO BE MEDIUM DENSITY. THAT CHANGED AT SOME POINT IN TIME HOWEVER, WE STILL SEE THE EFFECTS OF THAT RIGHT NEXT DOOR, AND THERE ARE EFFECTS ON THESE PROPERTIES BECAUSE OF THAT. AGAIN, THERE ARE NO OTHER PERMITABLE USES FOR THESE PROPERTIES AS INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. IN THE APPLICATION, I LISTED OUT WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER RGM, AND NONE OF THOSE, UNFORTUNATELY, ARE BUILDABLE DUE TO VARIOUS ITEMS IN THE CODE PROVISION. AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE WAS OBSERVATION FOR THIS GRANTED TO 885 BEACH. BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF LAND USE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, THE CODE CONSTRAINED THEM SO MUCH THAT THE ONLY WAY FOR THEM TO GET SOMETHING BUILT AT 885 WAS WITH A PUD. AGAIN, SO JUST WANTING TO STATE THAT IN THAT APPLICATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT SURROUNDING CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES WERE IMPACTING THE PROPERTY DISPARATELY FROM NEARBY PROPERTIES. AGAIN, THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 2 UNDER SECTION 2465F. ONE OF THE PRIMARY CONCERNS MENTIONED BY RESIDENTS, AND ONE OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS USED BY THE BOARD TO DENY THIS VARIANCE, WAS DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS WITH FIRES. AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING TO BE PARTNERS IN THIS. THERE'S OTHER WAYS OF ADDRESSING THAT WITH CONSTRUCTIBILITY. I'D ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT IN THE CODE ITSELF, IT DOES ALLOW FOR A TWO-FOOT OVERHANG, EVEN IN A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK. REALISTICALLY, THERE ARE PEOPLE RIGHT NOW BY RIGHT THAT CAN BE THREE-FOOT FIELD PROPERTY LINE WITH AN ARCHITECTURAL OVERHANG. NOTHING IN HERE HAS US DOING THAT OVER, BUT GETTING TO THAT THREE FEET, AND THE OWNER IS WILLING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT TO MAINTAIN THAT THREE-FOOT MINIMUM, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING ARCHITECTURALLY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THAT WITH THE FACTS BEING PRESENTED, CITY COMMISSION SHOULD GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE BOARD'S ORDER DENYING VARIANCE, DISREGARD THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION, AND ORDER THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. WE BELIEVE THAT THROUGH THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN HERE TODAY, THROUGH MY PRESENTATION THAT BETWEEN ITEMS 2, 4, AND 6, AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE REGULATIONS BEYOND A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF DOUBT DOES APPLY TO MY APPLICANT'S PROPERTIES, AND I DO BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THAT, THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE APPROVED. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. EX-PRESENTER, SPEAKER. NO ONE ELSE? YES. COME ON UP. BEFORE YOU SPEAK, SIR, I HAVE ONE CORRECTION TO MAKE. I MADE AN ERROR WHEN I ADDRESSED EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. I DID, IN FACT, HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TODAY WITH THE REALTOR RECORD ON BOTH OF THESE LOTS, JANE SHIELDS, AND SO MAKE THAT RECORD CORRECTION. THE CONVERSATION WAS GENERAL ABOUT HOW THE PROCESS GOES TONIGHT AND THE BELIEF THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT STRONGLY FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL. GO AHEAD, SIR. >> MY NAME IS JERRY HARWARD. I OWN THE PROPERTY AT 1039 BEACH AVENUE. I BOUGHT IT IN 1980 AND LIVED THERE UNTIL IT BURNED DOWN IN JUNE OF 2022. [01:20:02] HAD IT NOT BURNED DOWN, I'M SURE I'D STILL BE THERE. IT WAS A WONDERFUL PLACE. I HAD AN ORIGINAL AFTER IT BURNED DOWN, THE QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT REBUILDING IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT. THAT COULDN'T WORK BECAUSE BASICALLY, I COULDN'T AFFORD IT. AT MY AGE, I DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE ON A TWO-YEAR PROJECT OR A THREE-YEAR PROJECT. IT WAS PUT UP FOR SALE. WE ENTERED INTO A SALES CONTRACT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. WE THOUGHT THIS IS GOING TO BE REALLY EASY. IT WAS EASY ENTERING INTO THE SALES CONTRACT, GETTING IT CLOSED WAS NOT EASY. WE HAD MANY SEVERAL REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS, AND WE GAVE SEVERAL, AND BUT IT WAS BECAME OBVIOUS THAT NOTHING WAS EVER GOING TO HAPPEN. THEN WE SAID, FORGET IT. OVER THE TIME FROM THE TIME THE HOUSE BURNED DOWN TO NOW, WE'VE HAD FOUR DIFFERENT REALTORS TRYING TO SELL THESE TWO LOTS BECAUSE MR. FLEMING 1025 AND I, WHEN IT BURNED DOWN, WE STARTED TALKING, WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO GET SOMETHING BUILT IN HERE THAT FITS INTO ATLANTIC BEACH THAT PEOPLE WILL WANT. THIS WILL BE A LOT OF 63-FOOT LOT, THAT WON'T NEED ANY VARIANCES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE THOUGHT WE HAD A BRIGHT IDEA, BUT EVER HOW MANY YEARS IT IS LATER, IT STILL HASN'T SOLD, AND WE'RE REALLY NOT GETTING MANY BYTES, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. IT LEAVES ME RATHER WITH A POSSIBLY, UNLESS A VARIANCE IS NOT APPROVED, A 15-FOOT-WIDE BUILDING SPOT THAT IF YOU BUILT IT UP TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, IT'D BE 35 FEET TALL, AS I UNDERSTAND THE RULES. BASICALLY, YOU'VE GOT EITHER A LIGHTHOUSE OR A TOOTHPICK OR SOMETHING STANDING THERE. DOESN'T FIT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ATLANTIC BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S ONE OF THE CHARMS OF THE BEACH IS THE COHESIVENESS, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOUSES BELONG. THEY'RE NOT A BUNCH OF HUGE HOUSES, ESPECIALLY IN OUR AREA THAT JUST OVERBEAR EVERYTHING. IT'S A LOOK YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO. BUT THE OTHER THING IS WITH THIS LOT THE PLATTED IN 1913. I KNOW THE COUNTY THINKS MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN '39, BUT WHEN I WAS REMODELING AND TORE OUT A WALL, I FOUND SOMEBODY HAD SIGNED THE BATHTUB, AND HE SIGNED THE BATHTUB IN 1929, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S WHEN I THINK IT WAS BUILT. BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. IF YOU DON'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WENT ON AND THE POSITION THAT WE'RE IN, THEN YOU ARE SETTING A PRECEDENT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF SEVERAL, AT LEAST, OTHER HOUSES IN ATLANTIC BEACH, BUILT ON 30 FOOT LOTS, THAT THEY MAY NOT BURN DOWN, BUT THEY MAY BLOW AWAY, OR SOMETHING ELSE MIGHT HAPPEN TO THEM, AND THEY'RE GOING TO COME TO YOU AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE. I THINK WE HOPE THAT YOU WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION ALSO. BASICALLY, EVERYTHING ELSE I WAS GOING TO SAY IN ALL THESE PAGES HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY MORE PRESENTATIONS FROM THE APPLICANT? YES, SIR. >> JANE SHIELDS IS REALLY HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. SHE'S THEIR CURRENT REALTOR. SHE WOULD LIKE TO TALK NOW OR WITH A PUBLIC COMMENT. THAT'S JUST THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO SAY. >> I AM JANE SHIELDS. I'M THE CURRENT LISTING BROKER ON THIS PROPERTY ON BOTH LOTS. I'M JUST COMING BEFORE THE BOARD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AND TO DISCUSS MY CONCERNS WITH THE LISTING. TO SAY IN A FEW WORDS AND NOT THE CLIENT'S FIRST REALTOR, AS THEY'VE SAID, AND LIKE PREVIOUS AGENTS, WE'VE NOT YIELDED ANY MEANINGFUL INTEREST FOR THIS COMBINED LOTS. I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE SPLIT AND SOLD FOR [01:25:02] SMALL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR HOMES AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SELL THEM INDIVIDUALLY. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF BEACH AVENUE DOES NOT SEEM TO MERIT LIKE A LARGE 10 OR $12 MILLION HOUSE, WHICH WHEN YOU PUT THE TWO LOTS TOGETHER, THE COST OF IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AS I SAID, THIS WOULD NOT BE A GOOD AREA FOR A NEW DUPLEX TOWN HOME. THE CURRENT SETBACKS ARE RESTRICTING ANY TYPE OF INTEREST OR SALES FOR THESE CLIENTS. WELL, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I THINK WE'RE GOOD. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU, MS. SHIELDS. THEN WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS FOR THIS? >> YES. >> OKAY. >> NORMA RITZY. >> HI. THANK YOU. I'M NORMA RITZY, AND I AM A RESIDENT ON TENTH STREET, AND I'VE LIVED IN ATLANTIC BEACH FOR A LONG TIME. I KNOW MANY OF YOU. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE LOT DEVELOPED, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ONE HOME. THERE IS A GORGEOUS HOME RIGHT NEXT TO IT, THE BLUE HOME THAT'S UNDER CONTRACT, I GUESS, RIGHT NOW AND THAT'S WHAT WOULD FIT THERE. IT'S A BIG HOME. IT WOULD RESPECT THE CHARACTER OF ATLANTIC BEACH. IT HAS A SWIMMING POOL, AND IT HAS A NICE PATH DOWN TO THE OCEAN AND A GARAGE IN THE BACK. IT LOOKS LIKE THE OTHER HOUSES ON BEACH AVENUE. I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE IF THE REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS, EVERYBODY COULD JUST COME TOGETHER AND HAVE ONE LOT. WE WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE. WE WOULD KEEP THE CHARACTER, AND WE'D BE ABLE TO MOVE ON. NOW, THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY ON THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON REALTY, BUT I DID DO SOME RESEARCH BECAUSE I KNOW WE WERE TOLD TO STICK TO THE FACTS. MY RESEARCH WAS ON DENSITY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO FIRE. NOW, LET ME FIRST SAY THAT I AM SCARRED BY THE FIRE. I LIVE THROUGH IT. I HAD TO PULL MY SISTER AND MY TWO DOGS OUT OF THERE, AND I NEVER WOULD WISH THAT ON ANY OF YOU. IT WAS FRIGHTENING TO BE IN A BUNCH OF ROW HOMES WHOSE SIDING MELTED. WHOSE ROOF HAD EMBERS AND WHO HAD THE ATLANTIC BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT TRYING TO GET US OUT OF THERE INTO SAFETY, WHICH THEY DID. THANK YOU ALL FOR THAT. HERE ARE THE FACTS. BUILDINGS THAT CLOSE TOGETHER SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE RISK OF FIRE SPREAD AND OVERALL FIRE RISK. HERE ARE THE CONSEQUENCES. STRUCTURE TO STRUCTURE SPREAD. WHEN BUILDINGS ARE CLOSE, THE HEAT AND FLAMES FROM ONE BURNING STRUCTURE CAN EASILY RADIATE OR JUMP, WHICH THEY DID TO IGNITE ADJACENT BUILDINGS, CREATING A DOMINO EFFECT. CHALLENGES FOR FIREFIGHTERS. I JUST LOST MY PLACE IN MY PHONE. NARROW GAPS BETWEEN BUILDINGS CAN HINDER THE FIREFIGHTERS ACCESS TO THE FIRE, POTENTIALLY DELAYING SUPPRESSION EFFORTS. THAT HAPPENED. IF YOU'VE EVER DRIVEN DOWN BEACH AVENUE, THE ONE WAY STREET, IT WAS THOSE TRUCKS WERE BACKED UP FOR BLOCKS. REDUCED EFFECTIVENESS OF EQUIPMENT. LIMITED SPACE RESTRICTS THE POSITIONING AND EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF FIRE FIGHTING APPARATUS, LIKE AERIAL LADDERS AND HOSE STREAMS. BOTH OF THOSE WERE USED TO PUT OUT OUR FIRES. INCREASED RISK TO FIREFIGHTERS, AND THIS IS ALSO VERY SCARY. FIREFIGHTERS MAY FACE HIGHER RISKS FROM RADIANT HEAT, SMOKE, AND COLLAPSING STRUCTURES, ESPECIALLY WHEN OPERATING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE, I'D LIKE YOU TO WATCH THE VIDEO, THE JFRD SHOT OF THE FIRE. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW QUICKLY IT SPREAD, HOW FRIGHTENING IT WAS, AND HOW JAM PACKED ALL OF US, THE FIREFIGHTERS, THE RESIDENTS, THE NEIGHBORS, EVERYBODY WAS DURING THE FIRE. LIKE I SAID, WE'VE ALL BEEN SCARRED BY IT, AND I MYSELF STILL HAVE NIGHTMARES ABOUT THE FIRE. I'M NOT TRYING TO APPEAL TO YOUR HEARTS. I'M JUST SAYING LAST NIGHT, I HAD A NIGHTMARE. [01:30:04] HERE WE ARE ALL THESE YEARS LATER, AND I'M STILL SCARED. CONSIDER THE DENSITY, CONSIDER THE FACTS, STICK TO THE TYPE OF SPACE THAT'S NEEDED TO PREVENT OVER DENSIFICATION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. LET'S SEE. OTHERS. >> SCOTT CARNES. >> MR. MAYOR COMMISSIONERS, I'M SCOTT CARNES. I LIVE AT FIVE TENTH STREET. MY FAMILY OWNS FOUR OF THE 10 TOWNHOUSES, AND I SHOULD SAY, FIRST OF ALL, THEY'VE BEEN REFERRED TO AS CONDOMINIUMS. THEY'RE NOT CONDOMINIUMS. EACH NORMA AND TERRY ALL SPEAKING INDIVIDUALLY ON THIS. I THINK I AGREE WITH WHAT NORMA HAS SAID AND WHAT TERRY SAID, THEY'RE ALL IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT TERRY MENTIONED WHEN SHE SPOKE IS HOW BAD IT IS FOR THAT LOT NOT TO BE DEVELOPED. IT'S GOT TO GET DEVELOPED. IT'S JUST AN EYESORE, AND IT'S RAT INFESTED, AND WE ALL WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. SECOND, AND FACTOR THAT GOES TO THAT IS, AT LEAST IN THE APPLICATION, AS I READ IT, THEY SEEM TO BE COMMITTED TO TRYING TO SELL THIS AS ONE LOT, AND THAT IS CLEARLY THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN. THAT WAS IN THE PROGRAM AND PERHAPS WHATEVER YOU DO HERE, YOU CAN INCORPORATE THAT INTO IT BECAUSE THAT'S THE BEST RESULT FOR EVERYONE. WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRE CONCERNS THAT TERRY AND NORMA BOTH MENTIONED, THOSE ARE VERY REAL. I STOOD ON THE DUNE NEXT TO LARRY AND WATCHED HIS HOUSE BURN. IT WAS A TERRIFYING EVENT. BUT AS I READ THE APPLICATION, EVEN IF YOU DON'T APPROVE THE SETBACK, AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO 1025, DON'T APPROVE THE VARIANCE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON OUR SIDE, WHICH IS WHAT THEY GET WITHOUT THE VARIANCE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT AFFECTS US. THAT'S DIFFERENT FOR 1039 AND YOU MIGHT HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT, BUT WE'RE DOOMED TO BE RIGHT NEXT TO WHATEVER GETS BUILT THERE NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. MY VIEWS ON THIS ARE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THAT LOT DEVELOPED. WE NEED TO HAVE REASONABLE SETBACKS, WHICH WE'RE STUCK WITH FIVE FEET, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR WITH RESPECT TO US. I THINK WE NEED TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET THIS LOT DEVELOPED. THANK YOU. >> THERE ARE LOTS DEVELOPED. >> PREFERABLY AS ONE? >> YES, SIR. >> MS. SHIELDS, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK AGAIN? OKAY. THAT'S IT, THEN, MAYOR. >> OKAY. >> WAIT A MINUTE. WE HAVE A HAND. >> YES, PLEASE. >> LISA HAROLD, I DON'T KNOW IF ALL KNEW THIS, BUT I GREW UP AT THE CISTER. MY PARENTS BOUGHT ONE OF THE FIRST UNITS THAT WAS BUILT. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH TENTH STREET AND BEFORE SEA PLACE WAS SEA PLACED AND IT WAS PLACED BY THE SEA. THE REALTOR THAT WAS UP HERE EARLIER KEPT REFERRING TO 885 BEACH AVENUE. I WAS HERE WHEN THAT PARTICULAR 40 FOOT LOT WAS DEVELOPED IN THE LATE '70S, AND I JUST WANT ALL TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THAT'S WHERE THE EIGHTH STREET BEACH ACCESS SHOULD BE. SOMETHING WAS DONE, AND THAT WAS A PUBLIC SPACE, AND NOW IT'S NOT. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE VARIANCE. THANKS. >> THANK YOU, MS. HAROLD. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE TO CLOSING COMMENTS IN REBUTTAL. IS THERE ANY REBUTTAL? >> JUST AGAIN, THE IDEA OF THIS ONE HOME INSTEAD OF TWO, IT'S BEEN THE GOAL OF THE OWNERS. YOU HEARD IT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH, SO TO SPEAK, THAT THEY WANTED TO SELL IT AS ONE LOT, AND IT'S BEEN THE CASE FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW. IT'S JUST, OF COURSE, NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE, SIMPLY PUT TO DO THAT AT THAT LOCATION. ANOTHER THING TOO IS THAT, I RESPECT THE EMOTIONAL ASPECT OF THE FIRE AND THIS WHOLE EQUATION. I WOULD SAY JUST A FEW THINGS TO MAKE NOTE OF IS THAT GIVEN THAT THIS IS BEYOND THE CCCL LINE, I DON'T WANT TO SAY FACT, BUT IT'S ALMOST A FACT THAT WHOEVER BUILDS AT THESE PROPERTIES WILL HAVE TO DO IT WITH CONCRETE BLOCK, AND IT WON'T BE WOOD FRAME. IF ANYTHING, THE WOOD FRAME WOULD BE SECOND STORY AND ABOVE. THE POINT OF WHAT I'M SAYING HERE IS THAT THERE ARE CONSTRUCTION REMEDIES FOR THE CONCERN ABOUT FIRE, [01:35:04] REALLY, THERE'S THE SINGULAR SETBACK ARE BETWEEN 1039 AND 1057 THAT'S SUBSTANDARD TO CODE. THE LISTING AGREEMENT REFERENCE AND KEEPING THEM TOGETHER OR NOT. CURRENTLY, THE LISTING AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW HAS IT BEING COMBINED UNTIL THAT AGREEMENTS DONE. I KNOW BOTH OWNERS HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT DO THEY DO FROM THERE, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT KNOWN THAT CURRENTLY THE PLAN IS TO KEEP THEM AS A SEPARATE LISTING AND AS INDIVIDUAL LISTINGS AS FAR AS THE LISTING AGREEMENT GOES CURRENTLY. THEN JUST ONE SLIGHT CORRECTION IS THE 885 BEACH PROPERTY IS IN FACT A 30 FOOT LOT WITH A 26 FOOT WIDE STRUCTURE WITH TWO FOOT SETBACKS ON EACH SIDE. I JUST WANTED TO PRESENT THE FACTS THERE. THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. >> YES. >> I HEARD FROM THE CITIZEN WHO OWNS, I THINK, FIVE UNITS IN THE 10 UNIT TOWN HOMES ON 10, THAT ALREADY, THIS PRESENTATION IS ALLOWING FOR A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE THAT ABUTS THE TOWN HOMES, WHICH MEETS CODE, AND SO KNOWING THAT WE HAVE LITERALLY DOZENS, I SHOULD SAY, PROBABLY HUNDREDS OF HOMES WITHIN ATLANTIC BEACH THAT HAVE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON ONE HOUSE ADJACENT TO ANOTHER HOUSE WITH A FIVE FOOT SETBACK, WHY HAVEN'T YOU CONSIDERED PRESENTING WITH A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE? >> CERTAINLY, YES. THE REAL REASON WHY WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH THE 1025 WAS THAT EXTRA THREE FEET. I MENTIONED THAT WE MISNINGLY FILED IN THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE APPLICATION. THE PURPOSE OF THESE APPLICATIONS IS TO ACHIEVE 22.5 FEET WIDE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THE FRAME THAT WILL BE ON EACH SIDE LIKELY WILL BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 8-12 INCHES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS WIDTH, THIS 22.5 FOOT WIDTH ON BOTH LOTS IS TO ACHIEVE A TWO CAR GARAGE WITH A SIDE ENTRY. THE APPLICANTS ARE OPEN TO PUTTING FIVE FEET THERE IF WE WANTED TO SHIFT IT AND THEN MAKE THE INNER GAP SLIGHTLY SMALLER. THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. AGAIN, WE'RE JUST PRESENTING THIS AS WHAT WE THOUGHT MADE THE MOST SENSE, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE NOT THE ONLY CONSIDERATION. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL GO INTO COMMISSION DELIBERATION, BUT IF DO YOU HAVE MORE? >> I JUST WANT TO REITERATE TO COMMISSION THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS PROCESSES REGARDING THIS. YOU CAN APPROVE IT AS SUBMITTED. YOU CAN APPROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS OR YOU CAN DENY IT. YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO USE WHAT WAS PRESENTED TONIGHT. YOU CAN USE YOUR JUDGMENT AND THEN THE CRITERIA BASED IN 24-65 FOR YOUR EVALUATION. >> BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN AND WE'LL PROBABLY CALL YOU BACK UP ANYWAYS, BUT A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS, YOU INDICATED THAT NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AFTER THE FIRE THAT THEY HAD ONE YEAR TO REBUILD OR TO PERMIT? >> THE CODE SAYS YOU HAVE TO PERMIT AND THEN YOU HAVE UP TO THREE YEARS TO REBUILD. >> OKAY. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THAT THAT WAS DONE IN WRITING, THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT? >> YES. >> THEN WHEN THE ONE YEAR ELAPSED OR WAS APPROACHING EXPIRATION, DID YOU NOTIFY THEM YET AGAIN? >> YES. >> WAS THAT DONE IN WRITING? >> YES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT ALSO, FINALLY, TO CLARIFY MY POINT EARLIER ABOUT THE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS, AM I CORRECT THAT WE HAVE MANY, MANY HOMES WITH UTILIZING A FIVE FOOT SETBACK AGAINST AN ADJACENT NEIGHBOR WITH ALSO A FIVE FOOT SETBACK? >> WE DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NON CONFORMING HOMES. THIS ZONING DISTRICT HAS A COMBINED REQUIREMENT OF 15 FEET WITH NEITHER LESS THAN FIVE, SO YOU WILL FIND EVEN IN THE CONFORMING HOMES MANY HOMES THAT JUST HAVE A FIVE FOOT ON ONE SIDE AND OFTENTIMES 10 ON THE OTHER. BUT YOU ARE CORRECT THERE. UP AND DOWN THIS SECTION OF BEACH AVENUE, YOU'LL FIND MANY HOMES THAT DON'T EVEN HAVE A FIVE FOOT SIDE PAD. >> RIGHT. BUT ASSUMING THAT IT MEETS CURRENT CODE, BUT YOU SAID NON CONFORMING, IF THE CODE SAYS YOU CAN SPLIT YOUR 15 FEET INTO 10 AND FIVE, NO LESS THAN FIVE, IF YOU HAD TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES EACH UTILIZING THE SAME COMMON PROPERTY LINE FOR THEIR FIVE FOOT, THEN YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE 10 FEET BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS. THIS IS PREVALENT THROUGHOUT THIS CITY. THE REASON WHY I'M BRINGING THIS UP IS WE'RE GOING TO DELIBERATE ON THIS, AND IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AS SIMPLE AS JUST A HARD NO, OR YES, IT MAY BE THAT THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IS MORE REASONABLE THAT IS NO LESS HAZARDOUS THAN WHAT WE HAVE [01:40:02] BUILT THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND THAT'S MY POINT THAT I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON. >> I GOT SOME QUESTIONS FOR AMANDA. >> WHAT'S THE SETBACK OF THE TOWNHOME BUILDING? >> IT IS NON-CONFORMING. JUST BASED ON OBSERVATIONS STREET VIEW, I WOULD SAY IT IS ANYWHERE BETWEEN FIVE AND SEVEN FEET FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE. THE CODE DOES REQUIRE 20 FEET. >> THANK YOU. ALSO, WHEN WAS THE TOWNHOMES BUILT? DO WE KNOW THAT? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT. I WOULD GANDER TO SAY IN THE '70S. >> SEVENTIES? >> IT WAS BUILT IN 1990S. >> NO, SIR. YOU'LL HAVE TO STAND OUT. SORRY. MAY I ASK ALONG WITH YOU ON CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I JUST HEARD THAT THE TOWN HOMES OR THE SETBACK SHOULD BE 20, SO IT'S NOT CONFORMING. THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, AND THAT WOULD NEED TO BE 20. BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE ISSUE THAT'S COMING UP HERE AND THAT'S THE FIRE SAFETY ISSUE, IF YOU PRETEND THAT THAT'S JUST ONE HOUSE SHOTGUN OR NOT SHOTGUN, BUT ALL THE WAY TO THE BEACH, THE 10 UNITS, IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS A FIVE-FOOT SIDE SETBACK. >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION OR NOT AND JUST LOOKING AT THIS. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO BEST PERSON TO ANSWER THIS, BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE FURTHER VARIANCES. BUT HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION FOR STAGGERING THE HOMES INSTEAD OF HAVING THEM SIDE BY SIDE, SHARING EACH OTHER'S PROPERTY, SOMEONE'S GOING TO BE CLOSER TO THE OCEAN THAN THE OTHER, BUT AT LEAST YOU COULD BUILD A BIG ENOUGH HOME AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT WOULD WORK OR NOT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF LAND THERE AND YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO SELL IT. THESE TWO LOTS TOGETHER. NO ONE'S BUYING THAT. I KEEP HEARING THAT'S THE BEST SOLUTION, BUT THEY'VE BEEN TRYING FOR THAT AND NO ONE'S BUYING UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE, SOUGHT OF SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD HERE. IS THAT [INAUDIBLE] YOU RAISED YOUR ANSWER? YOU WANT TO COME TO THE PODIUM? LET AMANDA FIRST. >> I WILL ANSWER FROM THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF THING. YES, IT IS POSSIBLE TO STAGGER. HOWEVER, THERE IS THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE, WHICH IS MANDATED BY DEP, AND YOU CAN ONLY GET SO FAR EASTERLY WITHOUT DEP SAYING YOU CAN'T CONSTRUCT ANY FURTHER PAST THIS COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE. THEY ARE DEEP LOTS, BUT IT WOULD POTENTIALLY TAKE AWAY SOME OF THE BUILDABLE AREA IF YOU DID STAGGER THE HOMES. >> WHAT'S THE REGULATION FROM WHATEVER THE PROPERTY LINE IS MOVING WEST? HOW MANY? >> MOVING WEST. FROM THE STREET FROM BEACH AVENUE, EASTERLY, YOUR REQUIRED SETBACK IS 20 FEET. THAT'S TECHNICALLY ON OCEAN FRONT LOTS, YOUR REAR YARD, AND THE OCEAN SIDE IS A 20 FOOT SETBACK. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE, DEP TYPICALLY HAS A LOT FURTHER THAN 20 FEET. >> I GOT YOU. OKAY. >> YOU CALLED HIM UP. >> [OVERLAPPING] THE COASTAL SETBACK LINE WOULD PUT A NEW HOUSE, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE WAYS THAT SOME OF THOSE OLD HOUSES IN ATLANTIC BEACH WORKED. IS THERE ON A 30 FOOT LOT LIKE DAVIS' HOUSE, MR. FLEMING, 2025, HIS HOUSE WAS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE OCEAN THAN MINE. MINE WAS CLOSER TO THE STREET AND THE BLUE HOUSE THAT EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT THAT JUST SOLD, IT WAS ALMOST AT THE STREET. THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE LINED UP WITH THE BACK OF 1057, AND DAVIS' HOUSE WAS ABOUT 10 OR 15 FEET CLOSER TO THE OCEAN. THERE WAS AIR AND SPACE AND LIGHT THAT WENT THROUGH THERE. LIKE I SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE COASTAL SET BACK LINE WOULD PUT IT NOW, BUT THAT'S HOW IT WORKED THEN. IT WORKED GREAT, I THOUGHT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. WERE YOU CALLING ANYONE ELSE UP? ALL RIGHT. CONVERSATION, DELIBERATION? >> I'LL JUST ADD, MAYOR, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS LOT IS IN QUITE A QUANDARY IN TERMS OF VALUE, BUILD ABILITY, YET IT WAS PLATTED BY THIS CITY. IT SEEMS LIKE WE NEED TO, [01:45:03] I'M NOT SAYING WHAT YOU ALLUDED TO, I'M NOT SAYING WE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE, BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO FIND SOME WAY FOR THEM TO BUILD ON THIS. OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP HITTING THIS ROAD OR THIS INTERSECTION RATHER AGAIN BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY LOTS LIKE THIS. >> YES, COMMISSIONER. >> WELL, ONE THING I HEAR THAT IT'S NOT FINANCIALLY PRUDENT TO SELL BOTH THE LOTS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT FINANCIALLY PRUDENT IS, WHETHER THE LAND VALUE IS SUCH OR THEY WOULD TAKE SUCH A LOSS OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND. I DON'T KNOW THAT VARIABLE. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THE ISSUES THAT WE FACE WITH THE SETBACK. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR CUT. >> I DO TOO. IF I MAY, AT THIS TIME, I'M JUST WEIGH IN THAT. I HEARD THE CITIZEN AND SEVERAL CITIZENS TALK ABOUT THE FIRE RISK AND LOSS OF SLEEP AND NIGHTMARES, AND I GET IT, AND I FEEL SO BAD FOR YOU ON THAT. I THINK WE ALL CAN CELEBRATE THAT NOBODY DIED. I WAS HERE. I WITNESSED IT. I HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO. VERY SCARY STUFF. BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A REASONABLE SOLUTION HERE. ONE IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED ALREADY, AND THAT IS THAT THEY DON'T NEED ANY VARIANCE TO BUILD WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY BUILDINGS THAT ARE THE TEN TOWNHOMES. THAT'S WHAT WAS PROPOSED ON HERE. I WOULD NOT VOTE TONIGHT. I'M JUST TELLING YOU IN ADVANCE, I WILL NOT VOTE TO APPROVE SOMETHING WITH LESS THAN A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK. BUT IF THE TWO PARTIES, AND THIS BECOMES A CHALLENGE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT FAIR TO EACH OF THE TWO OWNERS BECAUSE ONE OWNER OWNS A 33-FOOT LOT AND THE OTHER OWNER OWNS A 30-FOOT LOT. IT'S NOT QUITE FAIR. BUT IF WE WERE TO CONSIDER A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK ON THE NORTH AND A FIVE FOOT-SETBACK ON THE SOUTH AND FIVE-FOOT SETBACKS INTERIOR, THAT'S CERTAINLY BETTER THAN A DENIAL IF THAT'S WHAT BOTH APPLICANTS WOULD AGREE TO. NOW, THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF 20 FEET OF SETBACKS VERSUS THE 30 FEET REQUIRED UNDER CODE. BUT TO YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER GRANT, THESE WERE PLATTED LOTS. THESE ARE OVER 100 YEARS AGO PLATTED, AND WE HAVE ALL LITTLE THINGS IN OUR OLDER CITY THAT DON'T CONFORM TODAY. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE APPEALING TO US BECAUSE ONE MUST OCCASIONALLY STOP AND REALLY THINK THROUGH THE IMPACT TO OUR CITIZENS ON OUR DECISIONS. IF IN FACT, WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF HOMES IN ATLANTIC BEACH THAT HAVE TWO ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION THAT ARE TEN FEET APART, WHY WOULD WE USE THE FIRE SAFETY ISSUE TO DENY THAT HERE TODAY? BECAUSE WE GRANT PLENTY OF APPROVALS FOR NON-CONFORMING IN THE EVENT OF A NATURAL DISASTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS. IN FACT, OUR RECENT CODE CHANGE STILL PRESERVED THE GRANDFATHERING OF HOMES THAT ARE DESTROYED BY FIRE, WIND, OR STORM ON GRANDFATHERING. I THINK IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S AN INJUSTICE NOT TO DO IT, BUT I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO OFFER THE SUGGESTION OF A SOLUTION AS FIVE, FIVE, FIVE, AND FIVE, AND STILL YOU WOULD HAVE HOMES THAT ARE PRETTY NICELY DESIGNED AS OPPOSED TO THE EXAMPLE OF A 15 FOOT WIDE THING. I JUST HATE TO SEE THAT. OF COURSE, SOME OF YOU MAY BELIEVE WE JUST LEAVE IT ALONE, DENY IT, AND THEY WILL FIND A WAY TO PARTNER AND SELL THE LOTS TOGETHER. I FIND THAT UNFORTUNATE TO FORCE THE ISSUE AND MAKE THEM JUST SWALLOW IT AND SELL THE LOTS TOGETHER AND GET OUT. ANYWAYS, I'M PROPOSING, AND I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION, OBVIOUSLY AS THE MAYOR, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR A MOTION AFTER CONSIDERATION, A MOTION TO OFFER. WELL, I'D HAD THE CONVERSATION FIRST WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT I'D LOVE TO HEAR A MOTION THAT WOULD APPROVE FIVE-FOOT NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE SETBACKS AND FIVE-FOOT INTERIOR. >> MAYOR, IN OUR CODE SET UP WITH THAT ONE YEAR AFTER A NATURAL DISASTER THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. THAT CAME IN WRITING, AMANDA MENTIONED. THAT'S WHY THAT CODE IS SET UP THAT WAY. IT GIVES THE CITY A SECOND LOOK ON THE DAY AFTER THAT YEAR, TO MAKE ATLANTIC BEACH BETTER AND SAFER. IT'S JUST MY OPINION. [01:50:02] >> IT'S A VALID OPINION. I JUST HAVE TO SAY THIS, THE APPLICANT ALREADY EXPLAINED, HE IS NOT FINANCIALLY IN A POSITION. IF NOBODY'S CHECKED LATELY, IT'S REAL EXPENSIVE TO BUILD HOMES. HE IS JUST NOT IN THE FINANCIAL POSITION TO REBUILD, SO HE KNEW HIS PATH WAS TO SELL THE PROPERTY. BUT HE WENT ON FAITH THAT EVERYTHING WAS SELLING AND JUST LET'S PARTNER WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND SELL, AND THAT HAS NOT WORKED OUT. >> [OVERLAPPING] YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HIS MINDSET A YEAR AFTER THE FIRE. I DON'T KNOW THAT. WHAT I DO KNOW IS OUR CODE, AND I DO KNOW OUR RULES, AND I DO KNOW AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, AND IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME ON PAPER. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. COME BACK WITH WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SO THAT WE CAN ANALYZE THAT AND GIVE IT ANOTHER GO. I WILL BE VOTING IN DENIAL OF THIS CURRENT ONE FOR THE SOLE FACT THAT THESE ARE OUR RULES, I UNDERSTAND WHAT A VARIANCE IS, BUT I'M LOOKING UP AT THOSE SIX GROUNDS FOR APPROVAL, AND I DON'T SEE ANY OF THOSE THAT I CAN PUT THAT CATEGORY. >> SEE, SOMETIMES WE DISAGREE ON THINGS. I SEE THREE THAT I THINK WOULD FIT, BUT THE CDB DID NOT ENTERTAIN THIS REQUEST WITH TWO FACTUAL PIECES OF INFORMATION. ONE IS THAT ONE LOT WAS 33-FEET WIDE, AND THE SECOND IS THAT THERE WAS NO OFFER OR DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGING FROM, I BELIEVE IT WAS THREE-AND-A-HALF-FOOT SETBACKS, AND WITH THE COMPELLING EXPLANATION THAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING FIVE-FOOT SETBACKS ADJACENT TO FIVE-FOOT SETBACKS THROUGHOUT THIS CITY. I HOPE YOU OPEN YOUR HEART ON THIS ONE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> YEAH. MAYOR, I UNDERSTAND THE 555. I UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF ALL THAT. BUT WOULD WE ENTERTAIN THE POSSIBILITY AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT PROPERTY OWNER WOULD WANT TO DO. BUT I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN THERE'S PLENTY OF TOWNHOME COMPLEXES ON SIMILAR LOTS AS SIZE, NOT AS LONG AS THIS, BUT CERTAINLY IN THE WIDTH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE THAT ARE SHARED WALLS IN THE MIDDLE. THEN IF THEY DID THAT, THEN THEY COULD COME BACK AT THE CURRENT BUILD, THEY HAVE TO ADJUST THINGS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IDENTICAL. BUT THEN THEY COULD COME BACK AND THEN THEY'D HAVE NINE FEET AND SIX INCHES TO GIVE EITHER SIDE, SO POSSIBLY THEY COULD LIKE SEVEN OR EIGHT FEET, QUICK MATH HERE, ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT TOWNHOME COMPLEX THAT HAD A SHARED WALL. THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT VARIANCE THEY WOULD NEED AT THAT POINT, BUT AT LEAST WE'D GET BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES PRETTY WELL COVERED IN TERMS OF SETBACK. >> OF COURSE, YOU WOULD MEET THE CODE. AMANDA, CAN YOU COME UP AND SPEAK TO THE ISSUE. IN THIS ZONING, DOES IT ALREADY ALLOW FOR THE ATTACHED CONSTRUCTION? >> YES, IT DOES. BUT REMEMBER, THIS IS TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO AGREE. >> [OVERLAPPING] NO, I GET THAT. >> SURE. >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME TO SOME AGREEMENT. >> IF IT WAS TOWN HOMES, THEY COULD COMPLY WITHOUT [INAUDIBLE] >> CORRECT. >> SURE. THEY JUST DO SEVEN-AND-A-HALF FOOT SIDE SETBACKS OF FIVE AND TEN. YES, COMMISSIONER. >> IF THEY CAME TO US AND SAID, WE WANT TO REPLAT IT AS ONE PROPERTY, IS THAT SOMETHING THEY COULD DO? >> YES. >> THEN IT COULD BE TITLED IN BOTH THEIR NAMES OR SOMETHING OR THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE? [OVERLAPPING] FOR LAND REGULATIONS, WE COULD REPLAT THAT INTO ONE BIG LOT, AND THEN YOU COULD PUT YOUR TOWNHOUSE ON THAT. >> FOR A SINGLE [INAUDIBLE] >> THE DUPLEX. THANKS, YOUR HONOR. >> I'M GOING TO CALL THE APPLICANT BACK UP. >> THIS IS REALLY NOT RESPECT. I THINK EVERYBODY KEEPS FORGETTING THAT THESE ARE TWO OWNERS THAT DON'T HAVE ANY BUSINESS WITH EACH OTHER. WELL, I'M NOT IN BUSINESS WITH 1025. HE'S NOT IN BUSINESS WITH ME. IT'S EASY TO SAY, WILL YOU JUST JOIN YOUR LOTS AND GO INTO BUSINESS AND DO SOMETHING. WELL, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF SOMEBODY TOLD YOU GO INTO BUSINESS WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR? YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO START WITH AND YOU DON'T WANT TO GO INTO BUSINESS ANYWAY. I THINK WHAT WAS FORGOTTEN LAST TIME TOO, IS THESE ARE TWO INDIVIDUAL OWNERS AND TWO INDIVIDUAL LOTS THAT WE THOUGHT THAT THE OBVIOUS THING TO DO WAS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. PUT THEM TOGETHER, SELL THEM, AND THEN THE NEW OWNER WILL COMBINE THEM INTO ONE LOT, AND THEN THEY DON'T NEED ANY VARIANCES. WE HAVEN'T FOUND THE MARKET. [01:55:01] >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR HIM? COMMISSIONER? >> DAVIS SNYDE. [LAUGHTER] >> OKAY. >> NOW, WE'RE JUST THINKING OUT LOUD UP HERE. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE GETTING SOME OF WHAT YOU'RE GETTING, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIND WAYS THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY HELP YOU. I GET THAT YOU GOT TWO OWNERS AND WHATNOT. >> OKAY. MR. HARVARD? >> CAN YOU COME BACK, PLEASE? YOU ARE THE OWNER OF? >> 1039. >> OF 1039. YOU'RE THE OWNER OF THE 30 FEET? >> CORRECT. >> THE OTHER OWNER IS NOT HERE? >> NO. >> DOES THE REPRESENTATIVE SPEAK FOR THAT OWNER IF THIS COMMISSION DID ENTERTAIN? >> I THINK YOU'VE MENTIONED THIS 555 MENTALITY. I WOULD SAY THAT IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO SUPPORT OR ASK US TO DO, THE WAY I SEE IT IS 1025 ALREADY COMPLIES WITH THAT. IT'S REALLY ON JERRY IF HE WOULD ALLOW FOR FIVE AND FIVE ON HIS LOT, IF I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? >> WHERE DOES THAT LEAD ME? >> IT WOULD BE AT MORE THAN 20-15 FEET. >> TWENTY ONE INSTEAD OF 22.5 WITH 1 FEET HERE AND ANOTHER 18 " HERE. HOW MUCH DISTANCE IS THERE BETWEEN THE TWO ALDOS? >> THIS WOULD BE 5-5 FEET. >> THAT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. >> FIVE, THIS WOULD BE 10-6 OR 22-23. ONE SECOND. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU'RE PREPARED TO ANSWER, BUT YES, COMMISSIONER. >> NO, MY POINT WAS, IS THAT IF WE DENY TODAY, THEY CAN FIGURE THAT OUT AND COME BACK AND IT WILL GO THROUGH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND THEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION. >> HOLD ON. CITY ATTORNEY WILL ADDRESS THAT. WITH A DENIAL, YOU'RE PUTTING THEM OUT ONE YEAR. >> IT MIGHT BE BETTER, MR. MAYOR, IF WE DEFER THE OTHER THING, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATION. >> WE DO ON FILE YES, FOR BOTH. >> YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT. IS IT A WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION ON BEHALF OF BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS? >> YES, BOTH. >> IF WE DO NEED SOMEONE TO SPEAK WITH AUTHORITY IN TERMS OF AGREEING TO CONDITIONS, AND CERTAINLY THAT COULD BE DONE TONIGHT IF THERE'S A REPUTABLE RESOLUTION TO THIS, BUT IF NOT, I AGREE WITH THE CITY MANAGER THAT MAYBE THE BEST ACTION WOULD BE TO DEFER IT AND SEE IF THERE'S A RESOLUTION FOR THE NEXT MEETING. BUT EITHER WAY. AGAIN, ASSUMING YOU DON'T WANT TO DENY IT OR APPROVE IT UPRIGHT. YES, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER. >> ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES WAS MAINTENANCE OF THE OF THE VACANT LOT. IF IT NEEDS TO BE MOWED AND IT NEEDS TO HAVE PEST CONTROL, THEN THAT'S A CITY CITATION. IF THE NEIGHBORS ARE BEING INVADED BY RATS AND THE AREA NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED, THEN THAT SHOULD BE A CALL TO THE CITY TO HAVE THE OWNERS DO THAT. I KNOW, BUT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PUSH THE RATS IN THE BUSH. >> THERE WOULD BE BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION AND CONCRETE AND ALL OF THIS SORTS. WOULD THERE BE ANY LEEWAY ON THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES? I'M TRYING TO GET AS CLOSE TO A REAL LOOKING HOUSE. >> WELL, I GOT YOU. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> YES, DO SO. >> TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF POINTS. THE FIRST LEVEL FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT, I CAN ABSOLUTELY DESIGN WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS 555. HOWEVER, THE SECOND LEVEL, WE WOULD STILL BE GRANTED THE OVERHANGS OVER THOSE SETS. >> NO MORE THAN ANY OTHER. >> JUST THE SAME BECAUSE THAT ALLOWS FOR ACCESS UNDERNEATH ON THAT FIRST LEVEL WITH UTILIZING OUR SETBACKS. THEREFORE, THAT IT DOES SEEM LIKE, HEY, ON THE FIRST LEVEL, WE WILL COMPLY ABSOLUTELY FOR A 555 AND 555, AND ALLOWING THE DESIGN OF IT TO THEN ON THE SECOND LEVELS TO STILL ACHIEVE THE ORIGINAL EFFECT OF THE DESIGN THAT WE PUT FORTH. SECONDLY, I'D LOVE TO TALK ABOUT FIRE CONTROL. THE CURRENT CODE NOW IS ABSOLUTELY ADDRESSES WITH THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE LIST. >> HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. [02:00:02] WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A TEN MINUTE RECESS. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A TEN MINUTE RECESS. WE'VE BEEN LONG IN THE CHAIR. WE'LL FINISH UP IN 10 MINUTES. [BACKGROUND]. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO HOLD FOR NOW BECAUSE WHAT I'M GOING TO DO AT THIS POINT, WE'VE HAD ENOUGH AND I'D LOVE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT FIRE AND SO ON, [02:05:01] BUT WITHOUT A MOTION, WE'VE GOT NOTHING TO GO ON. COMMISSIONERS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DENY, AND WE'LL MOVE ON FROM THERE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY BECAUSE OF NO GROUNDS IN 2465. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND NOW, WE CAN GET INTO FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> MAYOR, I'D LIKE US TO FIND A WAY THAT I DON'T WANT TO IF I UNDERSTAND THE RULES CORRECTLY, IF WE DENY YOU THEY'RE STUCK FOR A YEAR. THEY CAN'T COME BACK WITH ANOTHER OR CAN THEY. >> AS FOR THE SAME TYPE OF APPLICATION, THEY WOULD BE PROHIBITED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. NOW, IF THEY CAME BACK WITH SOME DIFFERENT ITERATION THAT'S DIFFERENT, THEY COULD COME BACK WITH. >> THEY COULD. >> THEY COULD WITH A DIFFERENT ITERATION, BUT NOT THE SAME REQUEST. >> JUST TO GET INTO THE MINUTIA A LITTLE BIT. IF RIGHT NOW THE REQUEST IS A VARIANCE ON SETBACK. BUT IF THEY CAME BACK ASKING FOR A DIFFERENT VARIANCE ON SETBACK, BUT A DIFFERENT SET OF MEASUREMENTS, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO ENTERTAIN THAT, OR WOULD WE HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER YEAR FOR THAT? >> THE QUESTION WILL BECOME AT THAT POINT, IS IT A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT APPLICATION? I'LL LEAVE THAT TO THIS COMMISSION TO DECIDE WHAT THAT IS. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DECIMALS, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT. BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE A FOOT OR MORE YOU HAVE. I'M MAKING THAT UP. >> I UNDERSTAND. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. >> THE GENERAL RULE IS, AS LONG AS IT'S A DIFFERENT APPLICATION, BUT IT'LL BE UP TO YOU TO SAY THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR OR SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. THAT MAKES SENSE? >> THANK YOU. >> I'LL LET YOU HAVE ONE LAST SAY. THE 1039 OWNER INSTRUCTED ME THAT HE'S WILLING TO AGREE TO FIVE AND FIVE, AS YOU MENTIONED, AND 1025 ALREADY COMPLIES WITH THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT KNOW. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH ON THAT. I MAY BE THE FINAL WORD, BUT I'LL KEEP IT OPEN AS LONG AS YOU WANT. AGAIN, HAVING SEEN SO MANY NONCONFORMING ISSUES IN THIS CITY. ESPECIALLY ON BEACH AVENUE. I CANNOT, FOR THE LIFE OF ME, UNDERSTAND WHY THIS COMMISSION WOULD NOT GRANT THIS APPLICANT RELIEF IF WE ARE NOT PUTTING THE CITIZENS AT RISK OF ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN EXISTS THROUGHOUT THIS CITY. I MUST NOT BE CLEAR. I FEEL LIKE I'M BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL. THERE ARE HOMES UP AND DOWN EACH OF OUR STREETS HERE THAT ARE 5 FEET FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE, AND THE NEIGHBOR IS 5 FEET FROM THE SAME PROPERTY LINE, WHICH A TOTAL OF 10- FEET. I'M HEARING THAT WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THAT RELIEF. NOW, I AM GOING TO BE OUT OF FAIRNESS TO COMMISSIONER BOLD, YOU HAVE A VALID POINT. HE HAD A YEAR TO DO SOMETHING. BUT I'M LOOKING AT A MAN WHO IS IN A RETIREMENT PHASE OF HIS LIFE, AND HE THOUGHT HE WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING AND THAT IT WOULD JUST WORK OUT. NOW THE END RESULT IS HE'S STUCK HOLDING THE BAG, AND I SO APPRECIATE AND, SIR, I WAS ABOUT TO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK ON YOUR BEHALF IS TRYING TO PUSH THE ISSUE OF PARTNERING WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR FINANCIALLY, WHEN YOU'RE IN RETIREMENT AGE, I WOULDN'T WISH THAT ON ANYBODY. I THINK IT'S REALLY REASONABLE TO GRANT RELIEF ON THE 555, AND 5 ON THE FOUR SETBACKS. WHEN YOU GO BACK AND DO YOUR HOMEWORK LATER, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND ALL EXAMPLES OF RELIEF BEING GRANTED IN THIS CITY OVER THE YEARS. WHY IS THIS ONE NOT ACCEPTABLE? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. BUT WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOW, YOUR VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IS TO DENY THIS REQUEST. WE'RE GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL LADSIA? >> YES, SIR. IS THERE A WAY TO DENY THE MOTION, BUT THEN COME BACK WITH CONDITIONS? THE 555. >> FIRST OF ALL, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. IF THERE'S A THREE VOTE AFFIRMATIVE, THEN THIS REQUEST IS DENIED. IF THERE'S THREE VOTES ON THE OPPOSITION, THEN THE MOTION FAILS, AND ANOTHER MOTION CAN NOW BE MADE. YOU VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE ON IT. LADSIA? >> COMMISSIONER BOLD. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER GRANT. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER RING. >> AYE. >> MAYOR FORD. >> NAY. MOTION FAILS. THANKS FOR THE HARD WORK, EVERYONE. I KNOW YOU BROUGHT YOUR BEST GAME. GOOD LUCK. >> BUT WE GOT TO DO IT TWICE. [02:10:03] JUST TO CLARIFY. THE MOTION DIDN'T FAIL, IT ACTUALLY PASSED. >> THE MOTION PASSED? >> YES. >> BUT THE MOTION WAS TO DENY. >> DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A SECOND VOTE ON THE SECOND ITEM I GAVE YOU. >> I GOT YOU. >> THAT'S YOU, MY EYES. >> NOW WE NEED A MOTION ON. WE'VE ALREADY HAD OUR PUBLIC HEARING. WE DON'T NEED TO DO ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING, I HOPE. THIS IS ON APP 25-005, [10.B. Public Hearing - APP25-0005 - Appeal of a decision of the Community Development Board (CDB) for variance ZVAR25-0011 at 1039 Beach Avenue] APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR VARIANCE ZVAR 25-0011 AT 1039 BEACH AVENUE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> TO DENY. >> TO DENY. [LAUGHTER] >> I WAS WAITING HEARING. >> YEAH. 0005. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ROLL CALL VOTE AGAIN, PLEASE? >> COMMISSIONER BOLD. >> AYE. COMMISSIONER GRANT. >> NAY. >> COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER RING. >> AYE. >> MAYOR FORD. >> NAY. THE MOTION PASSES AND THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE IS DENIED. LET'S SEE. CITY ATTORNEY, ANY FINAL COMMENTS THIS EVENING? >> NOT TONIGHT, SIR. >> CITY CLERK, LADSIA. CLOSING COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER BOLD. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY. >> COMMISSIONER GRANT? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY. >> COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> I HAVE NONE. >> COMMISSIONER RING. >> NONE. >> MR. KILLINGSWORTH? >> NONE. >> I HAVE NONE AS WELL. THANK YOU ALL. THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.