[00:00:04]
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
>> MY NAME IS RICHARD DUNNING.
I'M THE VICE CHAIR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING.
I'M FILLING IN FOR MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, MR. KEVIN KERN.
IF I DO WELL, IT'S BECAUSE JOHN AND HIS STAFF HAVE PUT TOGETHER A NICE PACKAGE.
IF I DON'T DO DO WELL, IT'S MY FAULT.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
THE MARCH 12 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF.
WOULD YOU PLEASE DO THE ROLL CALL?
>> CHAIR KERN. VICE CHAIR DUNNING.
>> NOW THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED A QUORUM, IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION PLEASE SUBMIT A GREEN CARD TO THE SECRETARY.
SPEAKERS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO EXPRESS THEIR COMMENTS.
WE'RE GOING TO LOOK OVER THE FEBRUARY 13 MINUTE.
>> I DO HAVE A COMMENT CARD FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
>> TOO EARLY. WE'LL DO THEM IN A LITTLE BIT LATER.
>> WE'LL GO OVER THE MINUTES. OKAY. WE WILL GO OVER THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 13,
[3. MINUTES]
2024, REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING.AT THIS TIME, THE NEXT ANY IS THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES FROM LAST WEEK.
>> COMMISSIONER GEISER HAS SOME COMMENTS ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE MINUTES UNDER ROGER DEAN STADIUM.
IT STATES UNDER THE STADIUM THAT SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW CLUBHOUSES. I'D LIKE TO AMEND THAT.
THE STATE, THAT IS TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW PLAYER DEVELOPMENT BUILDINGS.
ONE NEW CARDINALS DINING, MINI BUILDING.
RENOVATE THE EXISTING CLUBHOUSES, AND THEN AND LEAVE THE REST AS IT IS TO ENLARGE AND APPROVED MAINTENANCE BUILDING, ETC.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE MODIFICATIONS THAT MY COLLEAGUE OF YOU SAID?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
[4. CITIZEN COMMENT]
WE WOULD DO THE CITIZEN COMMENTS NEXT WHICH ARE UNRELATED TO THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.THE BOARD WILL NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS THIS EVENING.
ANY ISSUES WILL BE NOTED BY THE STAFF FOR FOLLOW UP AS APPROPRIATE.
STAFF ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU MENTIONED? ONE, CORRECT. FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> IT IS FROM THE PUBLIC. MR. PINTEL, IF YOU CAN STEP TO THE PODIUM. THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M MARK PINTEL.
I WAS ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR FOUR YEARS AND IT WAS AN HONOR TO SERVE WITH YOU GUYS, AND IT'S SOMETHING I TOOK A LOT OF PRIDE IN.
BUT AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO STEP BACK AND RESIGN MY SEAT BECAUSE I NEED TO TAKE CARE OF MY OWN HEALTH ISSUES.
AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING EVERYONE HAS DONE FOR ME, STAFF, AND ALL THE COMMISSIONERS WHO I'VE SERVED WITH AND WHO ARE ON THE PRESENT BOARD, AND I WISH YOU GUYS THE BEST OF LUCK IN DOING WHAT YOU DO. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU MARK FOR YOUR SERVICE AND WE'LL MISS YOU. TAKE CARE.
>> LET'S SEE MINE. ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU HEAR ME? FOR THE NEXT ITEM, THE REGULAR AGENDA.
[Additional Item]
WILL THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, THE STAFF, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA THAT WE SHOULD MAKE NOTE OF?[00:05:17]
>> MY APOLOGIES, I TURNED THAT OFF AFTER THE ISSUE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT YOU DID HAVE A POTENTIAL OLD BUSINESS ITEM ON THE AGENDA, 4705 PAULINA ROAD VARIANCE.
THE APPLICANT DID REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT, SO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, I WANT TO MAKE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT AND LET THEM KNOW.
WE WILL RE NOTICE THAT HEARING WE EXPECTED NEXT MONTH BUT WE'LL CONFIRM BEFORE DOING SO.
>> ARE THERE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA? IF NOT, CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CURRENT AGENDA? CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA? CAN I GET A SECOND?
>> AT THIS TIME, CAN THE SECRETARY PLEASE SWEAR IN ALL THE WITNESSES? THIS WILL BE FOR THE APPLICANTS TONIGHT AND IS FOR THE APPLICANTS AND STAFF WHO MAY BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PUBLIC MAKING COMMENTS.
CAN YOU PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> NOW WE'RE TO THE ORDER OF BUSINESS.
THE DECLARATION OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. WHAT DO WE HAVE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN? THAT ONLY APPLIES TO ITEM THREE ON YOUR AGENDA, THE VARIANCE.
FIRST TWO ITEMS ARE NOT QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS.
>> SO THE FIRST ITEM WOULD BE THE OLD BUSINESS ON THE ALMAS TRACT IS THAT CORRECT?
[5.A.1. Alma’s Place (Tract A) Rezoning]
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON THAT OR IS THAT ONE THAT WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE ONE ON?>> ONLY ON THE VARIANCE, THE THIRD ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
>> IS THERE ANY COMMENTS, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?
>> WE HAVE THREE COMMENT CARDS ON ITEM NUMBER 1.
>> THIS IS A STAFF INITIATED APPLICATION, SO WE'LL DO THE STAFF REPORT IF YOU'RE READY. PRESENTATION.
FOR THE RECORD, THATCHER HEART PLANNING AND ZONING.
THE APPLICATION HERE BEFORE YOU IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF A TOWN OWNED PROPERTY FROM A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO CONSERVATION.
THE CHANGE WOULD MAKE THE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE THE FUTURE LAND USE OF CONSERVATION THAT IS ON THE SITE.
THIS APPLICATION CAME BEFORE YOU, BACK IN NOVEMBER, I BELIEVE, EXCUSE ME, OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, AND WAS POSTPONED DUE TO CONCERNS ABOUT THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
SINCE THAT POINT, STAFF HAS MET WITH THE RESIDENTS AS WELL AS INTERNAL STAFF AND FOUND THAT THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT IMPACT THE RIPARIAN RIGHTS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.
AND I HAVE PROVIDED YOU AN OUTLINE OF THAT WITHIN THE HISTORY OF THE STAFF REPORT SECTION.
SO SHORT SWEEP. I'D LIKE TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
>> DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> WELL WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, COME TO THE PODIUM.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.
ALMOST PLACES IS ADJACENT TO MY PROPERTY.
IT IS AT THE END OF MY DRIVEWAY.
IT'S BEEN NEGLECTED FOR 30 YEARS.
AND WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO OWNED MY PROPERTY BEFORE ME DONATED TO THE CITY UNDER THE AUSPICES THAT IT WOULD BE MAINTAINED.
AND NOW I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE CHANGES.
WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE TURNED INTO A CONSERVATION PROPERTY AND IT
[00:10:01]
SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING ELSE IS GOING ON AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.WHAT DID ALL THAT MEAN, THAT HE JUST SAID? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> RESPOND. WE CAN GO OVER ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WHEN THEY'RE COMPLETED.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS?
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PAUL TIBODEAU.
I LIVE AT 129 RIVER ROAD, RIGHT NEXT TO FRANK.
WE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT MR. LEFKOWITZ CLAIMS OR HIS WANTS UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON WHEN WE READ THE STAFF REPORT.
WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HE WANTS AND WHY HE WANTS IT AND WHAT THE TOWN THINKS ABOUT IT.
WE THOUGHT THIS WAS A VERY EASY REZONING. IT'S APPROPRIATE.
IT'S BEEN A CONSERVATION PROJECT SINCE ALMA'S PLACE WAS PLOTTED IN 1983.
IN 1985, THE TOWN ACCEPTED THAT DEDICATION AND PROMISED TO KEEP THE PROPERTY IN GOOD REPAIR IN THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES, IN GOOD REPAIR FOR PERPETUITY.
WE'RE JUST CONFUSED ABOUT WHY THIS IS SLOWED THINGS DOWN AND IT SEEMED TO ME JUST SOMETHING QUITE EASILY INAPPROPRIATE.
WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR 25 YEARS AND HAVE WATCHED IT GET OVERGROWN EVERY YEAR SINCE.
>> WE DO HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT COMING.
WITS IF YOU CAN STEP TO THE PODIUM, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
>> HI, HOW ARE YOU? LET ME FIRST START BY SAYING HI NEIGHBORS.
MY WIFE AND I ARE FUNDAMENTALLY NOT OPPOSED TO THE LAND DESIGNATION CHANGE TO CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION.
WE BOUGHT THE LAND SEVEN YEARS AGO TO BUILD OUR DREAM HOME FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE, WE DIDN'T LIKE LOOKING AT OTHER HOMES, WE DIDN'T WANT TO LOOK AT FENCES, SO THAT'S WHY WE BOUGHT IT.
WE'RE NOT FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO THE CHANGE, BUT NUMBER 2 WAS THE RIPARIAN RIGHTS THAT WE BELIEVED CAME WITH THE LAND.
BACK IN 2017, I SPOKE WITH PETER BEGOVICH AND HE HELPED PROVIDE ME INFORMATION BACK THEN, WHICH I BELIEVE IS IN YOUR PACKET THAT THE TOWN SENT YOU.
HE ALSO SAID AT THAT TIME, IT WAS AN ODDLY PLOTTED LAND FOR THE POTENTIAL WATER ACCESS.
IF YOU SEE THE SURVEY, NORTHEAST CORNER IS JUST A VERY ODD SHAPE.
WE HAD TALKED ABOUT A POTENTIAL LAND SWAP BACK THEN, IT WAS SHUT DOWN FOR STORMWATER.
THE PLANNING ZONING PUSHED OFF THIS REQUEST UNTIL I GET MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED, SO I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THAT.
HOWEVER, I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE I STILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED, THE INTERPRETATION FOR, QUOTE, REPAIRING RIGHTS AS OPPOSED TO BEING A ZONING ISSUE.
ON THE 24TH OCTOBER, MY WIFE AND I DID MEET WITH MR. WATSON AND MR. HART TO REVIEW OUR CONCERNS.
DURING THAT MEETING, MR. WATSON DID SAY HE HATED TO ASK US TO SPEND MONEY, BUT IN HIS OPINION, IT WAS BEST TO FIND AN ATTORNEY TO GET OUR RIGHTS FIGURED OUT FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH A POTENTIAL LAND SWAP.
HE DID MENTION HE WAS IN FAVOR OF A LAND SWAP, SO IT WAS THE SECOND PERSON THAT SAID THEY LIKED THE POTENTIAL IDEA OF A SWAP.
THE ATTORNEY SENT THE LETTER, AND THEN ON 29TH FEBRUARY, WE WERE SHOCKED TO RECEIVE THE LETTER THAT SAID, HERE'S THE MEETING FOR TODAY BECAUSE WE THOUGHT WE'RE GOING TO GET TOGETHER AGAIN.
HE HAD SAID THE STAFF DID NOT IDENTIFY BENEFITS OF THE TOWN TO JUSTIFY CONSIDERING A LAND SWAP.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHY A LAND SWAP HAS TO REALLY ONLY BENEFIT THE TOWN.
I'M TRYING TO PROVIDE IDEAS AND SOLUTIONS THAT BENEFIT BOTH SIDES.
THE PIECE OF LAND THAT I WAS PROPOSING, A SWAP, SITS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT CONSERVATION PROPERTY.
THE PART THAT I TALKED ABOUT WAS JUST A GRASSY AREA EVER SINCE I MOVED INTO THE LAND. IT SEEMED LIKE A WIN WIN.
MY WIFE AND I HAVE LIVED IN JUPITER FOR A COMBINED 40 PLUS YEARS AND OUR HOPE IS REALLY A MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL AND WORKING TOGETHER APPROACH.
WE WERE NEVER OF THE ILLUSION THAT WE WOULD GET A LARGE BOAT IN OUR BACKYARD, BUT OUR HOPES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A SMALL JET SKI OR SOME TYPE OF WATERCRAFT.
MY CONCERNS REMAIN THAT REZONING COULD IMPACT MY USE.
I LOOKED AT JUPITER TOWN CODE SECTION 287680, USE REGULATIONS FOR CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION 82.
IT SAYS LIMITED WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION USES CANOEING, BOATING WITH NO MECHANICAL PROPULSION.
JUST THE WAY THAT READS THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD PROHIBIT ME FROM UTILIZING THE LAND.
AGAIN, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS.
WE JUST ASKED THE TOWN WORK WITH US TO FIND SOME TYPE OF SOLUTION FOR THIS REALLY UNIQUE SITUATION, THIS UNIQUE PIECE OF LAND THAT WE BROUGHT.
WE LOVE JUPITER. WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME AND THANK YOU FOR THE TIME,.
>> MR. BAIRD AND TOM, I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE JUMPED AHEAD, RIGHT? WE'RE NOT EVEN [NOISE].
>> LET ME ADDRESS THE TWO CITIZENS THAT FIRST SPOKE.
FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS JUST A CHANGE OF THE ZONING MAP FROM RESIDENTIAL TO CONSERVATION, WHICH IS WHAT THE ZONING FOR THAT LAND OUGHT TO BE,
[00:15:01]
BECAUSE IT'S A CONSERVATION PIECE THAT THE TOWN MAINTAINS FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A LAND SWAP.
I'M AWARE BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN TWO ATTORNEYS THAT HAVE CONTACTED THE TOWN ON BEHALF OF MR. LEFKOWITZ REGARDING WHAT YOU JUST HEARD.
THERE'S NO CURRENT DIALOGUE GOING ON BETWEEN THE TOWN AND MR. LEFKOWITZ REGARDING A LAND SWAP OR ANY OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT HE HAS DISCUSSED.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S DISCUSSED WITH STAFF.
I'M GOING TO SUGGEST RESPECTFULLY TO STAFF IF THERE'S LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING RAISED TO THEM THAT THEY REFER WHOEVER IS RAISING THOSE QUESTIONS TO ME.
BUT ALL THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS WHETHER YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL TO CONSERVATION, WHETHER YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND IT TO THE COUNCIL.
>> DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON WHAT WE JUST HEARD? YES, SIR.
>> NO. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I THINK COUNSEL SUMMARIZED IT PERFECTLY, AND IT'S ONE ISSUE WE HAVE IN FRONT OF IT, AND IT'S PURELY THE ZONING CHANGE, AND THAT'S IT.
>> WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT. PROPOSE.
UNDER NEW BUSINESS IS THE KB CARLIN AND FUTURE LAND USE BLUM AMENDMENT.
[5.B.2. KB Carlin Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Amendment and Rezoning]
AT THIS TIME I LIKE THE INVITE THE APPLICANT TO GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION.>> GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS GEORGE MISSIMER WITH COTLEUR AND HEARING HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE APPLICANT, AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT TWO APPLICATIONS, A SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AMENDMENT WITH A CONCURRENT REZONING.
WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER HERE TONIGHT WITH US, AS WELL AS OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, MR. ADAM KERR, MYSELF DANIEL FROM OUR OFFICE.
AS STATED, THERE ARE TWO REQUESTS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT THAT WE'RE REQUESTING YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL FOR A SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND A REZONING FOR A 1.62 ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
IT'S LOCATED WITHIN THE US HIGHWAY ONE CORRIDOR OF THE JUPITER CRA.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO AMEND THE LAND USE TO GO FROM A COMMERCIAL LAND USE TO A MIXED USE AND THEN A ZONING CHANGE CONCURRENT WITH THAT FROM C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO THE ICW, THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY US ONE CORRIDOR DISTRICT WHICH WOULD BE THE COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT SUB DISTRICT.
CURRENTLY, WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN APPLICATION IN REVIEW WITH THE TOWN.
AS NOTED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, WE ARE PROPOSING RESIDENTIAL AS ONE OF THE USES WITHIN OUR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS SURROUNDING THE AREA.
JUST BRIEFLY, THE LOCATION WE ARE LOCATED JUST WEST OF US, ONE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH INDIANTOWN ROAD.
A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE FROM WHERE WE'RE SITTING TONIGHT AT THE TOWN HALL, OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY. A LITTLE CLOSER VIEW.
AS I SAID, SOME OF THE EXISTING OR RECENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AREA LOCATED AT THE CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT IS ONE JUST SOUTH OF HARBOURSIDE, TO WHERE RESIDENTIAL USES WERE BROUGHT IN ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
AS I SAID, THE PROPERTY IS 1.62 ACRES.
WE ARE CURRENTLY COMMERCIALLY FUTURE LAND USE.
WE ARE PROPOSING A MIXED LAND USE, WHICH WOULD COME WITH A 35 FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT.
AGAIN, WE'RE PROPOSING RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL USES AS PART OF THAT SITE PLAN, WHICH IS NOT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WE'LL TRY TO STAY FOCUSED ON
[00:20:02]
OUR ISSUES CONCERNING THE LAND USE AND THE REZONING.I DID WANT TO NOTE THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S ABOUT AN ACRE OF MATURE MANGROVE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.
AS I STATED, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CRA OF THE US HIGHWAY IN CORRIDOR AND WITHIN THE ICW ZONING CODE, ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN THAT OVERLAY IS REQUIRED TO BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ICW ZONING CODE.
SO WE ARE REQUIRED TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY AND MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE SURROUNDING ZONINGS.
AS PART OF THAT, WE'RE AMENDING THE LAND USE FOR THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE A TRUE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND BRINGING IN RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
AS NOTED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, AND THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPERTY WE ARE JUST SOUTH OF THE TOWN'S PARCEL, PIATT PLACE PROPERTY, AND THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION ON DEVELOPING A FIRE STATION ON THAT PROPERTY.
WE ARE SEPARATED FROM THAT PROPERTY BY THE OLD JUPITER BEACH RIGHT OF WAY, AND WE ARE JUST NORTH OF THE EXISTING HARBOURSIDE DEVELOPMENT.
NOW WE LOOK AT BOTH OF THESE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS TREMENDOUS ASSETS TO OUR PROPOSED USE.
THE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL WITH RETAIL.
AGAIN, HARBOURSIDE BEING A DRAW, REALLY A TREMENDOUS ASSET FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SIMILAR TO WITH THE CORNERSTONE PROJECT, WE FEEL THAT PROPERTY, OR THE POTENTIAL BUYERS FOR THESE UNITS COMING IN ARE FULLY AWARE OF THAT HARBOURSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND REALLY LOOK AT THAT AS ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTING REASONS TO WANTING TO BE IN THIS AREA.
LIKEWISE, WITH THE POTENTIAL FIRE STATION, IF THAT ENDS UP BEING DEVELOPED ON THAT PARCEL, REALLY ALL THROUGH PALM BEACH COUNTY, IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WE SEE FIRE STATIONS IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL USES.
IT IS AGAIN A GREAT ASSET [NOISE] WITH THE PROPERTY BEING LOCATED ADJACENT TO US ONE, THERE'S SOME CONNECTION WITH PASSING OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND THEIR SIRENS.
BUT AGAIN, BEING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EMERGENCY SERVICES IS A BENEFIT FOR RESIDENTS.
NOW LOOKING AT THE POTENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY, AGAIN, WE'VE LOOKED AT DOZENS OF DIFFERENT SITE PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY AND DIFFERENT POTENTIAL USES.
LOOKING AT COMMERCIAL, THERE'S REALLY NO FEASIBLE WAY TO MAKE IT WORK IN MANY DIFFERENT ASPECTS AND WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
BUT JUST LOOKING AT HARBOURSIDE ALONE, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO BRING IN RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL SERVICES INTO THIS PARCEL.
HARBOURSIDE IS ABOUT 40% VACANT, GROUND FLOOR RETAIL.
THERE'S BEEN A LONG HISTORY OF STRUGGLING GROUND FLOOR RETAILERS IN THAT CENTER, EVEN THE RESTAURANTS.
THERE'S [NOISE] BEEN A TURNOVER IN THE DIFFERENT RESTAURANTS THAT ARE THERE.
SO REALLY, THE PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF THIS SITE LEND IT TO BE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR A DIFFERENT MIXTURE OF USES.
THE RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS REALLY MISSING FROM HARBOURSIDE TO POTENTIALLY MAKE THAT A MORE SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT.
JUST A FEW ITEMS, AND AGAIN, WE'LL HAVE A SITE PLAN COMING BEFORE YOU FOR THE PROPERTY.
LOOKING AT THE COMPARISON MAPS FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE TO GO FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE, AS WELL AS THE ZONING CHANGE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY CORRIDOR.
A COUPLE POINTS THAT WE REALLY WANTED TO EMPHASIZE WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT THAT ARE REALLY SIGNIFICANT [NOISE] IS THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND REZONING IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AGAIN, WE SEE THE HARBOURSIDE DEVELOPMENT AS A SIGNIFICANT DRAW FOR OUR PROJECT.
THE PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE WILL BE A BENEFIT TO THE SITE ENVIRONMENTALLY.
AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE ABOUT AN ACRE OF MATURE MANGROVE ON THE PROPERTY THAT HAS SOME NEGATIVE IMPACTS CURRENTLY DUE TO INVASIVE SPECIES.
THERE'S A LARGE STAND OF AUSTRALIAN PINE TREES AND A NUMBER OF OTHER EXOTIC SPECIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IMPACTING THOSE AREAS THAT WE WOULD BE REMOVING AND THEN RESTORING THESE AREAS.
AND THERE IS A POTENTIAL THAT THAT AREA COULD BECOME CONSERVATION AS PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENT.
THEN THE REQUEST WILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
THEN THE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE WILL RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN TRAFFIC FROM WHAT COULD CURRENTLY BE BUILT UNDER THE CURRENT LAND USE.
I'LL RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, BUT I APPRECIATE THE TIME. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. BEFORE A LITTLE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER,
[00:25:04]
BEFORE WE START ANY EX PARTE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS, BEFORE WE START STARTING WITH MR. THOMPSON. YOU DON'T NEED TO DO THAT.>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN. COMMISSION THATCHER HART, FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT.
THIS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY THAT YOU SEE HERE ON THE SLIDE BEFORE YOU.
IT'S DIRECTLY NORTH HARBOR SIDE AS STATED, AND IT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF US ONE.
THIS IS SPECIFICALLY JUST LOOKING AT THE REZONING AND THE FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN THAT COMES LATER ON.
AS YOU NOTED, OR AS YOU PROBABLY SAW WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, THAT JUST HAS TO DO WITH THE POLICY DECISION THAT'S BEFORE YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND THEN THE TOWN COUNCIL.
SO WHILE IT'S GOOD PLANNING PRACTICE TO ENSURE THAT THE LAND USE AND ZONING ARE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE BOTH OF THEM TO CHANGE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL.
THE KEY POLICY DECISION BEFORE THE BOARD HERE IS THAT FOR THIS APPLICATION IS WHETHER OR NOT RESIDENTIAL IS A DESIRABLE USE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE TO MIXED USE.
THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION WILL ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL TO BE ON THE SITE, WHEREAS THE EXISTING LAND USE WILL CONTINUE TO ALLOW ONLY FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
AS FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING OF THE PROPERTY, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH EITHER THE CURRENT OR PROPOSED LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE CORRIDOR AND SECTOR WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
STAFF HAS OUTLINED SOME CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL OF RESIDENTIAL WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING POTENTIAL FOR MORE RESIDENTS TO BE IMPACTED BY NOISE AND WITHIN THE DISTRICT DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF HARBOURSIDE.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS INCLUDE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL VIABILITY DUE TO THE ELEVATION DIFFERENCES OF THE STREET, CREATING VISIBILITY ISSUES, POTENTIALLY ACCESSIBILITY.
BUT THERE IS THAT RIVER WALK RIGHT THERE.
BUT LASTLY, AS NOTED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SECTION, AS TOUCHED ON A LITTLE BIT PREVIOUSLY, OUR STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 60% OF THE SITE IS WETLANDS OR MANGROVES.
TRADITIONALLY, IT HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THAT TYPE OF LAND BE PROTECTED WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING OF CONSERVATION.
HOWEVER, STAFF NOTES THAT THIS WOULD REDUCE THE DENSITY ALLOWED ON THE LOT FROM 6-5 UNITS, AND THEN FURTHER REDUCE THE INTENSITY OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL USES THAT'S OUTLINED FURTHER IN THE STAFF REPORT.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS JUST REGARDING THE ZONING, BUT WE DO HAVE THE SITE PLAN IN ATTACHMENT K FOR YOUR REFERENCE AS WELL.
SO I'D BE GLAD TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF, STARTING WITH MR. KEENAN?
THE APPLICANT MADE A REFERENCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT INDIAN TOWN AND ROUTE 1, AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS ISOLATED LAND USE THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THIS CHANGE.
MY QUESTION IS, HOW WOULD YOU DISTINGUISH THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY FROM THE ONE? IN OTHER WORDS, HOW DID THAT PARTICULAR LAND USE AT INDIAN TOWN OF ROUTE 1 NOT COME INTO THIS SAME PROBLEM OF AN ISOLATED LAND USE? DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION?
>> [NOISE] THE THE PROPERTY THAT THEY WERE REFERRING TO I BELIEVE WAS THE CORNERSTONE PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF US ONE.
>> AND THE NEW TOWN ROAD. THAT PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED WITH MIXED USE.
THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THAT IS THE JUPITER YACHT CLUB WHICH IS ALSO DESIGNATED WITH MIXED USE.
SO THERE IS A CORRIDOR PLAN FOR US ONE AND ALONG THE INTERCOASTAL THAT PROVIDES FOR A COMMERCIAL WATERWAY AND ENTERTAINMENT SUBDISTRICT SECTOR AROUND THAT INTERSECTION.
THE WAY THE LAND USE PATTERN HAD ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED WAS THAT THE DESIGNATIONS AS YOU GO FURTHER SOUTH, ONCE YOU GET TO THE CIRCLE AT JUPITER YACHT CLUB,
[00:30:02]
BASICALLY THE CENTER OF THAT DEVELOPMENT, IT TRANSITIONS TO ANOTHER SECTOR WHICH IS MIXED USE FOCUS ON RESIDENTIAL.MAIN USE DECISIONS WERE MADE AT THE TIME TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE JUPITER YACHT CLUB IN THE MIXED USE DESIGNATION, AND THEN CORNERSTONE CAME AFTER THAT AND REQUESTED MIXED USE AND IT WAS ADJACENT TO THAT AND USE CATEGORY.
IN THE CASE OF HARBOURSIDE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF INDIANTOWN ROAD, THAT PROPERTY MAINTAINED THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY AND IT WAS REALLY SEEN AS THE FOCUS OF THAT SECTOR FOR THE WATERWAY ENTERTAINMENT ACTIVITIES AND THAT'S WHY THAT DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T HAVE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.
THEY CHOSE TO DO A HOTEL COMPONENT THAT WAS SEEN AS BEING MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ENTERTAINMENT USES THAT WERE PROPOSED THERE.
WHILE BOTH COULD BE CONSIDERED CONSISTENT, THERE IS NO POLICY IN THE PLAN THAT CALLS FOR RESIDENTIAL TO BE PUT INTO THE SECTORS THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED FOR WATERWAY COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT.
SO THE LAND USE AND THE STAFF ISN'T NECESSARY TO BE CHANGED.
THE LAND USES ON THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN.
CERTAINLY A POLICY DECISION COULD BE MADE TO STRAY FROM THAT OR WHATEVER FINDINGS THE COMMISSIONER OR COUNCIL MAY HAVE AS IT RELATES TO THE REZONING, THE REZONING IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE REZONING PROVIDES FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES.
THE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ALL SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WOULD GO THROUGH A CONSISTENCY REVIEW THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE COM PLAN, ZONING CODE, COMPATIBILITY USES AND SUCH.
THE ZONING DISTRICT HAS ALSO INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT AND IS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICIES OF THE CONTEXT OF PLAN RELATED TO THE SECTORS BUT IT'S NOT [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT EVOLVED OVER TIME AND AS YOU PROCEEDED NORTHWARD, IT BECAME LESS ADAPTABLE TO RESIDENTIAL USE.
>> YEAH. THE COMP PLAN SPECIFICALLY CALLS FOR COMMERCIAL USES IN THAT WATERWAY ENTERTAINMENT USE AREA.
IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT DOES NOT ENCOURAGE THE RESIDENTIAL USE.
I GUESS I NEGLECTED TO REFER, THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS WAS ALSO MAINTAINED AS A COMMERCIAL LAND USE.
THAT'S THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT WAS REFERRED TO AS A PROPERTY BY THE GENTLEMAN.
>> OKAY. SO IT WOULD REMAIN AN ISOLATED LAND USE IF IT WERE GRANTED?
>> IT'S NOT CURRENTLY AN ISOLATED LAND USE.
>> IF IT WERE CHANGED, IT WOULD BE AN ISOLATED.
>> BUT AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, MIXED USE CAN TRANSITION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND MIX OF A HYBRID TYPE OF LAND USE.
>> THE QUESTION I HAVE, I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSERVATION CERTAIN AREA IF IT'S DESIGNATED, BUT HAVE WE TALKED ABOUT THE MARINE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM OF AN APPLICABILITY TO SOMETHING OF THIS NATURE?
>> SO THAT PORTION WOULD BE PART OF THE SITE PLAN LEVEL REVIEW.
>> THE APPLICANT, HOWEVER, IS FULLY COMMITTED TO THAT.
>> OKAY. THEN ONE OTHER QUESTION.
WITH THE GROUND USE, I MEAN, THE COMMERCIAL AREA, WHAT IS THE INTENTION OR THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE THERE?
>> WELL, I APPRECIATE YOU ANSWERING THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT SITE.
>> IN FACT, YOU KNOW, I WAS THE PLANNER OF RECORD MANY, MANY, MANY MOONS AGO ON THE PIATT PLACE PROJECT TO THE NORTH.
FIRST PROJECT I WORKED OUT OF WHEN I GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE AND MOVED HERE TO THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
BUT THIS IS A VERY, VERY CHALLENGING PIECE BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, IT'S IN A HOLE.
>> IT'S IN A HOLE, THERE'S ZERO VISIBILITY FOR ANY RETAIL.
WHEN WE LOOK AT LAND USE, WE CAN'T LOOK AT IT JUST ISOLATED.
WE HAVE TO REALLY LOOK AT THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT EXIST.
IT'S IN A HOLE AND IT'S A SMALL SITE, SO YOU COULD ONLY ACHIEVE A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF RETAIL USE.
WE'VE DONE MANY, MANY SITE PLANS OVER THE YEARS FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
OUR STUDIES INDICATE THAT WITH THOSE STRUCTURED PARKING,
[00:35:01]
YOU COULD GET ABOUT 3,500 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL IN A HOLE.THEN IF WE PUT PARKING UNDERNEATH IT, IT'S STILL GOING TO BE IN A HOLE BECAUSE IT'S SO MUCH LOWER THAN THE GRADE COMING OFF THE SLOPE.
BUT YOU COULD GET ABOUT MAYBE 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
IF ANYTHING BECOMES ISOLATED, IT WOULD BECOME AN ISOLATED DISTRICT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HARBOURSIDE, GENERATING MORE TRAFFIC.
IT'S NOT CONNECTED BECAUSE IT'S SEPARATED FROM THE WATERWAY.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VIABILITY FROM A COMMERCIAL VIABILITY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IT WOULD BE VERY MUCH SO UNVIABLE.
WE KNOW THAT THE PLANS THAT THE TOWN HAS PROFFERED FOR PIATT PLACE ARE GENERALLY MORE PARK LIKE AND MORE COMMUNITY ORIENTED TYPE USES, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC.
FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, AGAIN, OUR FIRM DOES MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT SOUTH FLORIDA [NOISE] TRANSITION DEVELOPMENTS.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MIXED USE, WE DON'T TALK ABOUT MIXED USE IN THE ABSENCE OF RESIDENTIAL.
IN FACT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PROBABLY WOULD ENERGIZE HARBOURSIDE WOULD BE SOME RESIDENTIAL AS A PART OF THAT COMPONENT, AND THAT'S WHY WE THINK THAT THIS USE IS GOOD.
WE ONLY COULD HAVE 5-6 UNITS AS POINTED OUT IN THE REPORT.
BUT HOW GREAT IT COULD BE IF SOMEBODY COULD LIVE HERE AND HAVE THEIR CORPORATE OFFICES IN HARBOUR PLACE.
IT IS THE DRAW. IT'S WHY MY CLIENT, MR. [INAUDIBLE], WHO IS HERE TODAY, BOUGHT IT BECAUSE HE WANTS TO LIVE THERE AND WANTS TO HAVE OFFICES THERE IN HARBOURSIDE.
WE SEE IT AS COMPLEMENTING AND KIND OF HELP FULFILLING A BETTER MIXED USE VISION THAN SUGGESTING THAT PERHAPS IT'S AN ISOLATED DISTRICT.
FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, IT ISN'T.
AS STAFF POINTED OUT, THIS IS 100% FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WHY THERE MIGHT NOT BE LANGUAGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SAYS WE SPECIFICALLY ENCOURAGE THIS AREA TO BE COMMERCIAL, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE WORD THAT SAYS WE DISCOURAGE THIS AREA FROM BEING COMMERCIAL.
WE THINK THAT GIVEN THIS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS IS REALLY THE BEST USE, AND WE STILL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A SMALL COMMERCIAL COMPONENT WHICH COULD THEN BE SUPPORTED BY SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS.
IT'D PROBABLY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE WATER ORIENTED.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S IN OUR THINKING.
BUT TO PUT COMMERCIAL IN A HOLE 60% HARBOURSIDE GROUND FLOOR IS VACANT.
THE RESTAURANT, SOME OF THEM ARE DOING VERY WELL, BUT IT'S A STRUGGLE.
FUNDAMENTALS OF RETAILING AND COMMERCIAL VISIBILITY, VISIBILITY, ACCESS, PARKING IN FRONT OF YOUR STORE, IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT.
SO WHAT WE THINK WE CAN COMPLEMENT AND PARLAY OFF OF WHAT HARBOURSIDE IS DOING WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USE, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT.
>> I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. I APPRECIATE YOUR EXPLANATION.
>> I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS AREA IS CLOSER THAN THE WATER'S EDGE DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD WITH HARBOURSIDE ON THE SOUND ISSUE.
WE'RE GOING INTO THIS WITH EYES WIDE OPEN.
WE DON'T THINK THAT WE WILL HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH YOUR DEVELOPMENT SINCE IT IS CLOSER THAN THE WATER SIDE.
FIRST OF ALL, I WILL TELL YOU AND IT'S THE HONEST TRUTH.
HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN DOWNTOWN FORT LAUDERDALE AND DOWNTOWN WEST PALM BEACH? THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE IN THAT VIBE.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE ARE DOING THIS.
WE KNOW THAT THERE'S INTEREST.
WE HAVE PEOPLE LINED UP, THEY WANT TO BE HERE BECAUSE OF HARBOURSIDE.
BUT THEN THE OTHER PIECE IS THAT, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH CONDOMINIUM TYPE CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WOULD BE YOU'RE DEALING WITH EXCEPTIONALLY TIGHT ENVELOPES.
THE RESIDENTIAL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER, OF COURSE, THAT'S YOU HAVE THE PREVAILING EASTERLY BREEZE.
BUT THOSE HOMES WERE BUILT PRIOR TO THE ADVENT OF IMPACT WINDOWS AND THE TIGHTNESS THAT WE CAN PUT INTO ENVELOPES TODAY, WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH SOUND AND SOUND MITIGATION, ALL OF THAT WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO OUR DESIGN.
WE WOULD ALSO IN THE ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION EVEN THOUGH THAT WE KNOW OUR RESIDENTS WANT TO BE HERE BECAUSE OF HARBOURSIDE, WE WOULD ASK THEM TO SIGN A DISCLOSURE.
WE'D MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS CLEARLY NOTICED THAT IT WAS THERE.
BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS, IT'S THERE.
IT'S NOT LIKE SOMEBODY IS GOING TO COME OVER HERE TO LOOK TO BUY A CONDOMINIUM AND NOT KNOW THAT HARBOURSIDE IS THERE.
THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GO TO HAVE LUNCH AT HARBOURSIDE.
THEY MIGHT EVEN FLY DOWN AND STAY IN THE HOTEL WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING.
IT'S ALWAYS A DIFFERENT SCENARIO WHEN WE SAY IT'S THERE.
JUST LIKE IN THE JUPITER INLET VILLAGE, JUANA BANAS AND THE SQUARE GROUPER WERE THERE WHEN INLET WATERS CAME IN.
WE DON'T HEAR ANY ARGUMENTS FROM INLET WATERS
[00:40:03]
BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE THERE FOR.I WOULD IMAGINE THAT MOST OF THEM BOUGHT THERE BECAUSE THEY COULD WALK TO THOSE PARTICULAR VENUES.
>> OF COURSE, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR A JUPITER FIRE DEPARTMENT THERE ALSO.
>> TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, WE KNOW OF AT LEAST ONE OF OUR POTENTIAL BUYERS HAS A PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITION.
TO LIVE THAT CLOSE TO A FIRE STATION, TO ME IS AMAZING.
THEY SAY IN THE WORLD OF HEALTH CARE THAT SECONDS MAKES DIFFERENCES.
BUT THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, MANY, MANY OF THE PLACES THAT I HAVE VISITED AND HERE IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, TYPICALLY IN OTHER PLACES OF THE COUNTRY, THE FIRE STATION IS LIKE THE HEARTBEAT OF THE COMMUNITY, RIGHT IN THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.
WE DO STATIONS IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, JUST FINISHED ONE, FIRE STATION 40 DOWN IN BOYNTON BEACH, PART OF A RESIDENTIAL PED, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND RIGHT BACK.
IT TURNED OUT ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL.
WE ALSO THINK THE REDUCTION OF TRAFFIC WITH ONLY HAVING SIX RESIDENTIAL UNITS THERE, COMPARED TO THE TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE GENERATED BY THE NONRESIDENTIAL IS A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF CONFLICTS THAT COULD OCCUR FOR THE FIRE STATION.
>> OKAY. TALK TO ME ABOUT THE SEAGRASS SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED AND IT WILL HAVE TO BE DONE.
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU FIND SOMETHING? ARE YOU NOT ABLE TO OVERCOME IT?
>> SEAGRASS SURVEY IS JUST SIMPLY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY DOCKS.
THAT WILL ALSO COME BACK COMPLETELY WITH THE MARINE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM, WHICH IS A WONDERFUL ADDITION TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WOULD COME BACK.
IF THERE ARE SEAGRASSES THERE, IT COULD LIMIT OR IT COULD EVEN PREVENT WHERE OR IF DOCKS COULD BE PUT IN.
SEAGRASS SURVEYS, WHEN THEY'RE DONE, HAVE TO BE DONE, I THINK STARTING MAY OR JUNE OR SUMMER MONTHS IN ORDER FOR THOSE TO BE VALID.
>> THAT'S PART OF THE SUBMERGED BOTTOM AREA SURVEY?
>> THEN JUST ONE LAST COMMENT FOR THE RECORD.
WE WOULD ALSO BE WILLING TO WORK WITH STAFF ON THERE'S A GOOD PORTION OF THE SITE, THE MAJORITY IS OLD GROWTH FORESTED MANGROVES.
WE'D BE WILLING TO WORK WITH STAFF ON A CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THOSE AREAS, AND I THINK WE COULD WORK IT OUT WHETHER IT WAS A DEVELOPMENT ORDER, CONDITION OF APPROVAL, OR WE DID IT AS A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
IN THE WORLD OF LAND USE AND ZONING, WE DEDICATE ROADS AND RIGHTS OF WAY ALL THE TIME AND THE DENSITY TYPICALLY GOES WITH THE ROADS AND THE RIGHTS OF WAY.
WE COULD WORK WITH STAFF TO SEE IF THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE DENSITY HERE OR NOT.
IT'S JUST REALLY A MATTER OF WHEN IT OCCURS, WHETHER IT'S POST DO OR DEVELOPMENT ORDER OR BEFORE.
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO WHICH WOULD BE A HUGE BENEFIT TO THE CITIZENS OF JUPITER BECAUSE THAT'S A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT AREA OF NOW, WHAT IS COMMERCIALLY ZONED MANGROVES.
>> HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING FROM HARBOR SIDE ANY OF THE BUSINESSES OR ANY OF THE INTEREST OVER THERE CONCERNING?
>> WE'VE NOT HAD ANY DISCUSSION.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE US TO DO, WE'RE HAPPY TO REACH OUT.
>> WE JUST KNOW A NUMBER OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES BUSINESSES OVER THERE, SO WE HAVE SOME CONNECTIONS AND KNOW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE INTEREST IN HAVING HOUSING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC [INAUDIBLE] ON THIS?
>> OKAY. AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATIONS THAT WE NEED TO ENTERTAIN BEFORE WE MAKE AN ENTERTATION TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OR DENY THAT MOTION? ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD HERE?
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE. THERE'S A LOT OF PROS TO THIS THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.
IT'S AN EXTENSION TO THE RIVERWALK, WHICH IS REALLY INCORPORATED IN A LOT OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF WHAT THE TOWN IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE ACROSS THE INTERCOASTAL.
I DO GO BY THAT PLOT OF LAND MANY TIMES IN A BOAT AND I KAYAK THROUGH THERE.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL PLACE.
IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT, IT WOULDN'T BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WOULD BE THERE.
THERE'S A LOT OF PLUSES WITH IT.
BUT THE ONE THING THAT I'M VERY INTERESTED IN IS THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ASPECT TO THIS.
I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE A CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AT THIS TIME, CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY?
>> MR. CHAIR, IF YOU COULD [OVERLAPPING].
[00:45:01]
>> ADD ITEM A SEPARATELY FROM ITEM B, WHERE THE SMALL SCALE LAND USE FIRST AND THEN THE REZONING SEPARATELY.
>> OKAY. THE FIRST MOTION WE WOULD MAKE WOULD BE FOR THE ZONING?
>> ITEM A, SMALL SCALE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT, COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE IS THE QUESTION.
>> CAN I GET A MOTION ON THAT?
>> MR. COMMISSIONER, [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE.
>> ALL OPPOSED? NO. OKAY. THE SECOND AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE VOTING ON ON THIS IS THAT RIGHT, JOHN?
>> YES, ITEM B, ZONING FROM COMMERCIAL C-2 GENERAL TO US HIGHWAY ONE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICT, COMMERCIAL WATERWAY AND ENTERTAINMENT SUBDISTRICT.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP.
I CAN REPEAT THAT WHOLE THING IF YOU WANT ME TO, [LAUGHTER] FROM A COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO US HIGHWAY ONE, INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICT, WATERWAY COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.
[5.B.3. 24 E Riverside Drive]
AT THIS TIME, WE'D LIKE TO DO THE RIVERSIDE DRIVE.THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS 24 EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE VARIANCE.
THE BOARD WILL BE SITTING AS A ZONING BOARD, ADJUSTMENTS, AND WE TAKE FINAL ACTION ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? I WILL START WITH MR. KEENAN.
>> I VISITED THE SITE, WALKED IT, WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE THE BOAT DOCK THING OR THE RAMP EXCUSE ME, NOT DOCK RAMP, BUT DIDN'T NOT INTERACT WITH ANYBODY.
>> I VISIT SITE AS WELL BUT DID NOT SPEAK WITH ANYONE.
>> I ALSO VISITED THE SITE MYSELF.
AT THIS TIME, DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OR THE APPLICANT. YEAH.
>> I'M SORRY, THE APPLICANT. WOULD YOU GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ZACH CICIERA WITH COTLEUR & HEARING UP IN JUPITER OR ACTUALLY WE'RE IN JUPITER.
>> DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> I DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU AGAIN.
MY NAME IS ZACH CICIERA JUST FOR THE RECORD, COTLEUR & HEARING JUPITER.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE HOMEOWNER FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU.
I'D JUST LIKE TO START OUT WITH A LOCATION MAP JUST SO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF, OBVIOUSLY, YOU GUYS HAVE READ YOUR PACKETS, BUT JUST SO YOU HAVE AN IDEA AND WHERE YOU CAN ENVISION THE SITE BEFORE I GET INTO THE PROPOSAL.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ON EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE, JUST WEST OF ALTERNATE A1A.
OUR PROPOSAL TONIGHT IS WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 27-2624 TO ELIMINATE THE FIVE FOOT REQUIRED SETBACK FROM THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE.
WE ARE REQUESTING THAT BECAUSE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WILL ALLOW THE HOMEOWNER TO REMOVE THE DILAPIDATED UNUSABLE BOAT RAMP AND CONNECT THE EXISTING SEAWALL IN ITS PLACE.
THE CURRENT CODE PROVISION RESTRICTS THE HOMEOWNER TO MAINTAIN THE UNUSABLE BOAT RAMP WITHOUT THE OPTION FOR REMOVAL.
I'LL DRAG IN THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE BOAT RAMP IS CURRENTLY.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S IN VERY POOR CONDITION.
SORRY ABOUT THAT. THE BASE IS COMPLETELY CONCRETE.
THERE'S NO LIVING ECOSYSTEM IN THIS RAMP CURRENTLY.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE BOAT RAMP, CONNECT THE EXISTING SEAWALL AND INSTALL ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES AND RIP RAP ALONG ANY PORTION OF THE SEAWALL THAT IS NOT ENCOMPASSED BY MANGROVES.
[00:50:02]
HERE IS THE CURRENT MEAN HIGH WATER LINE AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE YELLOW LINE WITHIN THE BOAT RAMP.I JUST WANT TO TAKE A COUPLE SLIDES TO GO THROUGH THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I JUST WANT TO SUMMARIZE THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEN RELATE THAT TO THE ZONING CODE.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE TEXT, BUT JUST TO START WITH THE RED TEXT HERE.
NEW SEAWALLS SHALL ONLY BE PERMITTED TO PROTECT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WHERE THEY PREVIOUSLY EXISTED.
NEW BULKHEADS ON PROPERTIES WHERE THEY DID NOT PREVIOUSLY EXIST SHALL BE LOCATED LANDWARD OF COASTAL WETLANDS AND THEIR ECOTONES.
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE INTENT TO PRESERVE LIVING ECOSYSTEMS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK.
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT POLICY 1.5.16, THE MARINE STEWARDSHIP PLAN SHALL IDENTIFY AREAS WHEN IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO RESTORE OR ENHANCE THE MARINE HABITAT THROUGH THE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MANAGEMENT OF LIVING SHORELINES AND ARTIFICIAL REEFS.
WE'VE COLLABORATED WITH THE REEF FALL FOUNDATION.
WE ARE IMPLEMENTING ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES AND THIS SECTION IS BASICALLY SHOWING DIFFERENT WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS WHEN YOU ARE PRESERVING A LIVING ECOSYSTEM.
THEN AS THIS RELATES TO THE ZONING CODE HERE.
THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS I SAID, TO PRESERVE LIVING ECOSYSTEMS. THEN WE GET TO THE ZONING CODE.
THE SETBACK SHALL BE FIVE FEET FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL LINE OF THE STATE, OR THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, WHICHEVER IS MORE, WHEREVER THE LIVING ECOSYSTEM IS, FIVE FEET BACK FROM THAT.
AS I SAID, THIS IS A SUMMARY PAGE HERE.
IT IS THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO PRESERVE LIVING ECOSYSTEMS AS A TRANSITION TO MEAN HIGH WATER ECOLOGICAL BENEFIT.
ECOTONE HABITAT AND WAVE ATTENUATION ARE THE THREE MAJOR FACTORS IN THIS.
GIVEN THIS UNIQUE SITUATION, THE REMOVAL OF THE BOAT RAMP IN ADDITION TO THE PROPOSED RIP RAP AND ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES, AS I STATED, WILL FURTHER PROMOTE LIVING ECOSYSTEMS AND PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL BENEFIT THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY.
TODAY, IT'S ESSENTIALLY NOTHING.
THEN PART OF THE APPLICATION WHERE THE VARIANCE CRITERIA THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO AND AS A PORTION OF STAFF'S REPORT, HERE ARE SOME OF THE CRITERIA.
I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THESE TWO HERE.
THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT IS, STAFF SAYING THAT WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE'VE SATISFIED THAT CRITERIA.
SAME THING WITH CRITERIA 6, THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSES OF THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
THAT IS, STAFF SAYING WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WITH THIS APPLICATION. THEN CRITERIA NUMBER 3, AS PER THE STAFF REPORT THAT YOU'VE ALL READ, THE STAFF HAS DEEMED US NOT SATISFIED THIS CRITERIA STATES, LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WOULD DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES.
IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THAT OR SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS.
WHILE WE APPRECIATE THAT, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CODE PROVISION IS A HARDSHIP IN ITSELF.
REQUIRING A 10 FOOT CUT OUT OF THE PROPERTY IS EXTREMELY AWKWARD AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPICAL STRAIGHT CONFIGURATION OF ANY WATERFRONT LOT IN THIS DISTRICT.
THE CODE ITSELF, IF ENFORCED IN THIS SITUATION, DOES NOT PRODUCE WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS I WAS STATING IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDES, A FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO PRESERVE LIVING ECOSYSTEMS. STAFF HAS CONFIRMED THAT THIS REQUEST IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SO WE ARE PRESERVING LIVING ECOSYSTEMS. FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL PRODUCES SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS.
THEN THE LAST CRITERIA HERE, THE VARIANCE GRANTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF LAND, BUILDING, OR STRUCTURE.
AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE AWKWARD SHAPE OF THE LAND CREATED BY THE BOAT RAMP CAUSES A HARDSHIP TO THE HOMEOWNER.
WHILE OTHER SOLUTIONS HAVE BEEN NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, NONE OTHER THAN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING WILL PROVIDE THE MOST ECOLOGICAL BENEFIT.
MAINTAINING THE BOAT RAMP WITH ADDED RIPRAP AND STAIRS WILL BE MORE PRONE TO HUMAN DISRUPTION, POTENTIALLY CAUSING SAND AND OTHER MATERIALS TO BE WASHED INTO THE RIVER.
[00:55:01]
THERE'S MULTIPLE CASES ON THIS ON PROPERTIES ALONG THE RIVER.THEN HERE'S A PHOTO TAKEN ABOUT A MONTH AGO OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S NO LIFE THERE.
YOU CAN SEE THE MANGROVES HERE, I'LL GET TO ANOTHER PICTURE IN A SECOND, BUT THE ENTIRE BOAT RAMP IS ALL CONCRETE.
HERE'S THE EXISTING MANGROVES.
THE MANGROVES ACTUALLY ENCOMPASS OVER 70% OF THE WATER FRONTAGE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THEN THE APPLICANT HAS COLLABORATED WITH THE REFALL FOUNDATION.
YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE REFALL FOUNDATION.
THEY INSTALLED ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES IN SOFISH BAY PARK, BUT WE BASICALLY ASKED THEM, DESIGN THE MOST ECOLOGICAL PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID, AND WE'VE SUBMITTED A LETTER FROM THEM CERTIFYING THAT IN THIS APPLICATION.
AND THEN LASTLY, HERE'S ANOTHER, JUST AN EASIER IMAGE TO VIEW FOR THE SITE PLAN.
YOU CAN REALLY SEE ALL THE MANGROVES THAT WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED HERE.
YOU CAN SEE THE RIPRAP, OVER 100% OF THE SEA WALL NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE MANGROVES, AND THEN THE REEF MODULES THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO INSTALL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ZACH. DONALDSON HEERING, FOR THE RECORD, JUST TO SUMMARIZE REAL QUICK, AND I THINK ZACH DID AN EXCELLENT JOB.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS VERY CLEARLY WHAT THE INTENT OF THE CODE SECTION WAS.
THE INTENT OF THE CODE SECTION THAT WAS WRITTEN WAS THAT IF I WAS GOING TO BUILD A SEA WALL WHERE A SEAWALL DIDN'T ALREADY EXIST, I WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME FIVE FEET IN IN THE LANDWARD AREA WITH THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD BE PRESERVING THE UPLANDS OR THE ECO-TUNNEL VEGETATION OR THE MANGROVE THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF MEAN HIGH WATER AND WHERE THAT NEW SEA WALL OR EMBANKMENT WOULD BE, SO IT MIGHT COULD BE EVEN AN UPLAND RETAINING WALL AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT.
THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT WAS SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS CREATED, AND THEN THERE'S IMPLEMENTING LANGUAGE, WHICH IS THE ZONING CODE, WHICH BASICALLY IS THE RULE THAT IS INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, AND EVEN AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF UNUSUAL CASES THAT ARE OUT THERE.
AND WHEN THESE CODE PROVISIONS WERE PUT IN, THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THOSE UNUSUAL CASES WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AS A PART OF A VARIANCE OR LOOKING AT THE HARDSHIP.
AND I KNOW HARDSHIPS ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER, BUT THIS INDEED IS A HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE VERY CODE SECTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION IN AND AMONGST ITSELF, IS NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IF WE'RE LOOKING TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING, COMBINED WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM THAT WE'RE INTRODUCING, IS GOING TO BE DOING THE BEST.
I LIVE ON THE RIVER, I'VE GOT LOTS OF NEIGHBORS, I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS ALONG THE EDGE OF THE SHORELINE WHEN PEOPLE ARE DRAGGING KAYAKS DOWN TO THE SHORELINE.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO STAIRS, MANY OF THEM BRING IN THEIR OWN BAGS OF SAND AND THEY PUT SAND DOWN IN THERE, IT WASHES INTO THE WATER.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS, IN ADDITION TO THE EXTENSIVE MANGROVE FRINGE WE ALREADY HAVE, ADDING RIPRAP, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE WAVE ATTENUATION WITH THE REEF MODULES IS A FAR BETTER SOLUTION.
WE WOULD ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THIS.
I THINK STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS IS A GREAT SOLUTION AS WELL.
WE WOULD LOOK FOR YOUR SUPPORT BECAUSE I TRULY FEEL WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THE CODE, YOU CAN CLEARLY CONFIRM THAT BOTH THE TWO CRITERIA THAT WEREN'T SATISFIED ARE INDEED SATISFIED BECAUSE IT IS A HARDSHIP.
BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO WAS NOT WHAT THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS TO DEAL WITH UPLANDS AND PROTECTING IT AND SETTING THE WALL BEHIND.
>> AT THIS TIME, STAFF COMMENTS.
FOR THE RECORD, LIZZIE CONLEY, PLANNING AND ZONING.
AS APPLICANT STATED, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO SECTION 27-2624, ENTITLED SHORELINE STABILIZATION, TO INSTALL A BULKHEAD FIVE FEET WATERWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE ON AN UNARMORED PORTION OF THE WATERFRONT IN ORDER TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING BOAT RAMP LOCATED AT 24 EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE.
THE NEW BULKHEADS HAVE A REQUIRED SETBACK OF FIVE FEET LANDWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, AND THIS APPLICATION IS REQUESTING TO PLACE THE BULKHEAD FIVE FEET WATERWARD MAKING THE VARIANCE 10 FEET IN TOTAL FROM WHAT IS REQUIRED BY CODE.
BOAT RAMPS ARE UNPERMITTED IN TOWN CODE AND THERE ARE ABOUT 10 KNOWN RAMPS IN THE TOWN.
[01:00:05]
IN 2015, WHEN THE SHORELINE STABILIZATION CODE WAS ADOPTED, THE TOWN CONSIDERED RAMPS' UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS TO BE HANDLED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS LEADING TO THE SUBJECT VARIANCE REQUEST.THERE ARE OTHER VARIANCE CASES IN THE TOWN IN WHICH MANY APPLICANTS HAVE RECEIVED A SETBACK OF ZERO AT THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE.
THEN IN 2018, THERE WAS ONE WHERE THERE WAS A DILAPIDATED BOAT RAMP THAT WAS ALLOWED TO BE BUILT 12 FEET WATERWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PROPOSING SIGNIFICANT MARINE IMPROVEMENTS COMPARABLE TO THE SHORELINE STABILIZATION GOALS.
THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH RECENT TOWN MARINE PROJECTS IMPLEMENTING THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES IN LOCATIONS WHERE STRUCTURES EXIST TO ESTABLISH A LIVING SHORELINE WATERWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE.
THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD BE A GOOD FIT UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITIONS AND IS GOING BEYOND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO PLACE THE REEF BALL MODULES TO BENEFIT THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT.
I'LL GO INTO THE REASONING FOR EACH OF THE CRITERIA THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
CRITERIA 3, WHICH IS THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
TRADITIONALLY, THIS HAS BEEN VERY HARD TO MEET BECAUSE IT'S VERY STRICT AND LITERAL, BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING USE OF THE LAND.
IT'S BEING DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THERE'S AN EXISTING DOCK, AND THERE'S ALSO ACCESS TO WATER.
THE APPLICANT IS STILL ABLE TO ENJOY ITS OWNER'S RIGHTS AND WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER, CONSIDERING THAT THE LAND WOULD ONLY BE RESTRICTED 136 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS INSIGNIFICANT TO THE 39,000 SQUARE FEET PLOT.
THE CONFIGURATION WOULD STILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO STABILIZE THE PROPERTY WITHOUT ENCROACHING WATERWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, BUT STAFF NOTES THAT THE LIVING SHORELINE ENHANCEMENTS PROPOSED IN TANDEM WITH THE SIGNIFICANT EXISTING MANGROVES IS CONSIDERED A DESIRABLE ALTERNATIVE.
THE VARIANCE GRANTED BEING THE MINIMUM VARIANCE.
THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT THE MOST MINIMUM BECAUSE THE MOST MINIMUM WOULD BE MEETING THE SETBACKS OF THE CODE, CONSTRUCTING THE BULKHEAD BACK TO WHERE THE SETBACK HEAD WOULD STILL STABILIZE THE PROPERTY, WHILE ALLOWING WATER ACCESS.
HOWEVER, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS MINIMAL AND WOULD NOT CREATE A LARGE IMPACT ENVIRONMENTALLY, OR TO THEIR NEIGHBORS.
IT IS REASONABLE TO BUILD THE BULKHEAD IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE BULKHEAD, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ADDED PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS.
SHOULD THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FIND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL SEVEN CRITERIA NECESSARY TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD ADD THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL PROVIDE A MARINE STEWARDSHIP PLAN TO OUTLINE AND DETAIL INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES, RIPRAP AND MANGROVES ALONG THE SHORELINE, AND STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THEIR MANGROVES SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING.
THE CONDITION IS JUST TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN REMAINS AS ENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL AS POSSIBLE AND IT IS GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED.
MARINE STEWARDSHIP PLANS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND NEITHER ARE ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES.
LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> AT THIS TIME, DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF STARTING WITH MR. KEENAN?
>> YEAH, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
ONE, DOES THE APPLICANT CONCUR WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PUTTING TOGETHER A MARINE STEWARDSHIP PLAN?
>> MY SECOND QUESTION, I WAS OUT LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE BOAT RAMP FROM THE BACKYARD FACING TOWARDS THE WATER.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOT A PRETTY SOLID SEA WALL ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
THE LEFT SIDE LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT FILLED IN.
IT'S PRETTY DEEP BACK IN THERE.
IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF MAYBE MADE OF CINDER BLOCK AS OPPOSED TO A POURED CONCRETE.
IS THAT CORRECT? MY QUESTION IS WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE REPAIRED IN ORDER TO CONNECT ANOTHER BULK HEAD TO IT.
>> I'LL HAVE THE CONTRACTOR RESPOND TO THAT.
>> FOR THE RECORD, CORY HANLON, SEAGATE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION.
ONCE WE STARTED DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE AT 24 RIVERSIDE DRIVE WITH THAT BOAT RAMP FAIR MEETING THE ELEVATION STANDARDS THAT THE TOWN REQUIRED US TO SET THE HOUSE ON, WE STARTED GETTING A LOT OF EROSION PROBLEMS THERE AT
[01:05:01]
THE HOUSE THAT WE'RE GOING DOWN TO THE BOAT RAMP WITH THE SUMMER RAIN.ACTUALLY, THE CINDER BLOCKS THAT YOU SEE IN THOSE PICTURES WERE ADDED JUST TO HOLD BACK SOME OF THAT FILL THAT WAS BROUGHT IN BECAUSE THE SILT FENCE THAT WE HAD INSTALLED JUST WASN'T CUTTING IT WITH THAT ADDITIONAL ALMOST EIGHT FEET OF ELEVATION FROM WHERE WE STARTED INITIALLY.
>> IS THE EXISTING SEA WALL TO THE RIGHT THERE I GUESS TO THE LEFT OF THE RAMP? DOES THAT HAVE TO BE STABILIZED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE ONE TO THE RIGHT?
>> NO. THEY'LL BOTH BE STABILIZED THE SAME.
THE CURRENT PERMIT REQUEST THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN IS TO REMOVE THE EXISTING SEAWALL AND INSTALLATION OF NEW SEAWALL.
>> THAT EXISTING SEAWALL, I ASSUME YOU GOT TO FILL ALL WITH LANDFILL THEN?
>> YOU'LL FILL IN THE WHOLE AREA THEN WITH DIRT OR WHATEVER.
>> YES. THE GOAL IS TO BRING THAT UP TO GRADE, WHICH I THINK THE TOWN HAS ISSUED US A SIX FOOT HIGH ELEVATION FOR THE SEAWALL.
THE PLAN IS TO HIT THAT SIX FOOT MARK AND THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT IN A PROPOSED ONE FOOT BLOCK RETAINING WALL BEHIND THAT TO BRING THAT ELEVATION UP AS WELL.
>> THE LOOSE CINDER BLOCKS AND THAT ALL BE REMOVED THEN?
>> THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTION.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
WHAT SPECIFICALLY WERE THE ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS FOR THIS APPLICATION?
>> WELL, I THINK THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE.
THE FIRST IS I THINK ELIMINATING THE BOAT RAMP IN ITS CONFIGURATION RIGHT NOW WILL ELIMINATE ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS FROM HUMANS GOING DOWN INTO THAT AREA, DRAGGING KAYAKS, WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
I'VE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS. THEY PULL OUT MANGROVES.
FROM MY OBSERVATIONS ON THE WATER FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SEE. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
THE SECOND PIECE IS THAT WHY WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL MANGROVE FRINGE AND I APPLAUD THIS PROPERTY OWNER FOR KEEPING THAT LARGE OF MANGROVE FRINGE.
THE AREA IN BETWEEN THE MANGROVE FRINGE WHERE THE DOCK IS, THAT AREA WATER COMES RIGHT UP TO THE SEA WALL.
WITH SEA LEVEL RISE, YOU DO TEND TO GET SOME MORE WAVE ATTENUATION THAT REVERBERATES IN THE RIVER.
IT CREATES EROSION AND OTHER THINGS.
WE'RE COMING IN AND WE'RE PUTTING IN RIPRAP FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH EXCEPT FOR WHERE WE HAVE MANGROVES.
OF COURSE, WITHIN THE RIP RAP YOU'LL GET SOME MANGROVES AND OTHER THINGS THAT WILL GROW OVER TIME AND WOULD BE PART OF THAT MARINE STEWARDSHIP PLAN.
THEN I THINK THAT THE LAST PIECE OF WHAT WE'LL BE DOING IS THESE REEF BALL MODULES, WHICH IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE MOST EXCITED ABOUT BECAUSE WHILE THE REEF BALL MODULES WILL MIMIC THE FUNCTIONS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE MANGROVES RIGHT NEXT TO THE DOOR TO IT AND CREATE THAT GREAT INTERACTION BETWEEN THE RIPRAP, BETWEEN THE MANGROVES, AND BETWEEN THE REEF BALL MODULES.
I THINK THEY'LL BE SOME GREAT SYNERGIES BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL THAT HABITAT WITHIN THE MANGROVES.
I THINK ALL OF THAT WILL WORK TOGETHER VERY, VERY NICELY.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST IS THE WAVE ATTENUATION THAT DOESN'T EXIST TODAY AND KEEPING MEN OUT OF THERE FROM LETTING THE MANGROVES GROW UP, MAINTAINING THAT SHORELINE WHERE IT CAN BE PROTECTED.
>> THEN I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I THINK THERE WAS LIKE A PRECEDENCE THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER VARIANCE THAT WAS APPROVED.
WAS THAT A VERY SIMILAR TYPE OF SITUATION?
>> IT WAS ANOTHER BOAT RAMP THAT WAS DILAPIDATED.
IT HAD A MORE EROSION THAN THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY, BUT THEY HAD ASKED FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST OF 17 FEET WATER WORD OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, AND THEN THEY RECEIVED FROM THE BOARD 12 FOOT VARIANCE.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF HAD AND THERE WAS A COUPLE OF THEM THAT WEREN'T MET.
IF WE APPROVE THIS AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T MET THESE CONDITIONS, ARE WE SETTING SOME KIND OF PRECEDENT?
>> THE BOARD MAKES FINDINGS ON ANY CONCLUSIONS THEY COME TO.
IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE ANY POINTS AS TO WHY YOU MADE THE DECISIONS TODAY, IF YOU CHOOSE TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE.
THEN THAT WILL BE REDUCED INTO A FINAL ORDER BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
>> SEPARATE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND JUST PROBABLY FOR MY OWN PERSONAL INPUT.
[01:10:03]
THE REEF BALLS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THESE ARE THE SAME REEF BALLS THAT WE USE LIKE IN SAWFISH POINT, IS THAT CORRECT?>> SAWFISH BAY. WITH SOME OF THEM WE'VE GOT SOME LARGER ONES AND THEN SOME MORE ONES THAT ARE SPREAD OUT WHERE A COUPLE DIFFERENT TYPES.
WE'RE USING THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF REEF BALLS.
WE'RE DOING I KNOW FOUR OF EXACTLY WHAT'S IN SAWFISH BAY AND THEN ONE BIGGER ONE THAT WILL GO OUT INTO SOME OF THE DEEPER WATER.
THEN ONE THAT'S MORE OF A LONGER, MORE INTEGRATED UNIT.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT ARE TOTALLY IN FRONT OF THE AREAS WHERE OUR RIPRAP IS.
>> SO THIS IS SOMETHING ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT YOU'RE DOING?
>> NONE OF THIS IS REQUIRED BY CODE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT OUR CLIENT PARTICULARLY WAS INTERESTED IN WHEN WE READ THE LANGUAGE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE WANT TO BE A PART OF THE TREND SETTERS OUT HERE SHOWING WHAT CAN BE DONE AND SHOWING THAT HOMEOWNERS WE'LL VOLUNTARILY DO IT.
I'M HOPING TO GET MY REEF BALL OF MY OWN.
>> I'M THINKING THE SAME THING.
I KNOW A COMMUNITY THAT NEEDS SOME OF THOSE TOO, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
AT THIS TIME, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> FOR THE APPLICANT, ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OPPOSITION FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE? ARE THERE ANY MORE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BOARD THAT WE NEED TO HAVE BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION? ANY MORE DISCUSSION?
>> I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR COUNCIL AND THAT IS HOW SPECIFIC DOES OUR CONCLUSION AND FINDING HAVE TO BE WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIANCE?
>> WELL, YOU CAN RELY ON THE STAFF REPORT FOR YOUR FINDINGS, ON ALL OF THE SEVEN CRITERIA EXCEPT FOR NUMBER 3 AND 4.
STAFF FOUND THAT CRITERIA 3 AND 4 WEREN'T SATISFIED.
IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY SO THAT I CAN WRITE AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IF IT'S YOUR DECISION TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE, WHY ITEMS 3 AND 4 ARE SATISFIED, THAT WILL MAKE MY TASK EASIER.
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE THAT 3 AND 4 ARE SATISFIED, THE CODE REQUIRES THAT ALL OF THE CRITERIA BE SATISFIED.
IT'S EITHER ALL OR NOTHING ON SATISFACTION OF THE CRITERIA.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO WITH AN APPROVAL, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO RECITE SOME FINDINGS ON 3 AND 4.
THERE IS A REPORT FROM THE APPLICANT JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT.
IF YOU WANT TO RELY UPON THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATION IN THAT JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT AS TO HOW THEY MEET 3 AND 4 THEN YOU SIMPLY NEED TO LET ME KNOW THAT SO THAT I KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE RELYING UPON.
>> FOR THE BOARD'S REFERENCE, THAT'S ON PAGE 3-9 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
>> MR. BAIRD, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IT'S REALLY ALL OR NOTHING, CORRECT? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT WITH THE EXCEPTION.
>> FOR THE BOARD AT THIS TIME, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY? CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE?
>> I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPLICANT'S ARGUMENT ON POINTS 3 AND 4 AND ALSO SUBJECT TO THE GREEN STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM AS SPECIFIED BY STAFF BEING ADOPTED.
>> ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.
AT THIS TIME, DO WE HAVE A STAFF UPDATE?
>> I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T PREPARE YOUR REPORT FOR THIS WEEK.
I CAN SEND IT OUT TOMORROW WITH SUMMARY.
>> IF THERE IS NO STAFF UPDATE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.