[00:00:02]
>> HELLO. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. SEVEN O'CLOCK.
[Call To Order]
I CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER, MARCH 11TH, 2025, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.STAFF, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL SO WE COULD ESTABLISH A QUORUM?
>> VICE CHAIR RICHARD DUNNING.
>> COMMISSIONER MICHAEL CASSATLY.
>> COMMISSIONER DAN GUISINGER.
>> COMMISSIONER DAVID THOMPSON.
>> NOW THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED THE QUORUM, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION, PLEASE SUBMIT A GREEN COMMENT CARD TO THE SECRETARY UP HERE.
SPEAKERS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO EXPRESS THEIR COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT. NEXT ARE CITIZEN COMMENTS UNRELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS. THE BOARD WILL NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS THIS EVENING.
ANY ISSUES WILL BE NOTED BY STAFF FOR FOLLOW UP AS APPROPRIATE.
STAFF, ARE THERE ANY COMMENT CARDS FROM THE PUBLIC OR ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> THANK YOU. NEXT IS MINUTES.
[MINUTES]
WE WANT TO REVIEW THE FEBRUARY 11TH, 2025 MINUTES.ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE MEETING MINUTES? IF NOT, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> EXCUSE ME, THERE WERE REVISIONS THAT WERE PASSED OUT.
THEY'RE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IN THE AREAS THAT WERE UPDATED.
>> I THINK I HAD AN EX PARTE CLARIFICATION ON THE MINUTES ALONG WITH COMMISSIONER CASSATLY AND COMMISSIONER VINSON.
WITH THOSE CORRECTIONS, CAN SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY NAYS? PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
[REGULAR AGENDA]
STAFF, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT?>> CAN THE SECRETARY PLEASE SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES? THIS WILL BE FOR ALL THE APPLICATIONS TONIGHT AND IS FOR THE APPLICANTS AND STAFF WHO MAY BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE MEMBERS OF 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? THANK YOU. YOU CAN BE SEATED.
[2. U-Tiki]
IS THE U-TIKI SMALL SCALE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT.LET'S DO OUR EX PARTE DISCLOSURES STARTING ON MY RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KELSO.
>> I WALKED THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
>> I WAS PRESENT AS WELL AT THE PROPERTY.
>> I DID WALK THE PROPERTY SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT THE SIGNS, AND I TALKED TO THE SERVICE MANAGER, AND ALSO TALKED TO ONE OF THE OTHER BUSINESSES SIDE BY JUPITER BOAT RENTALS, AND I TALKED TO JOHN ABOUT IT AND GARRET.
>> I SPOKE WITH TOWN STAFF AND ALSO WALKED THE SITE AND TALKED TO THE SERVICE MANAGER AND ONE OF THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVES.
WENT INTO A COUPLE OF THE STORAGE BUILDINGS OR OFFICES, TALKED WITH THE SERVICE MANAGER, JACK THOMPSON, AND ALSO HAD AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH MR. WATSON.
>> THANK YOU. LET'S SEE, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
>> I DROVE BY THE SITE. I WALKED THE SITE THIS AFTERNOON AND SPOKE WITH ONE OF THE MANAGERS THERE.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KEENAN.
I DID SPEAK WITH GARRET WATSON AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO INVITE THE APPLICANT TO GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION.
FOR THE RECORD, ZACH CICIERA, COTLEUR & HEARING IN JUPITER, FLORIDA.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MARINEMAX AT U-TIKI.
WE ARE HERE TONIGHT FOR A SMALL SCALE PUD AMENDMENT.
WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS A REDUCTION TO THE REQUIRED SIDE CORNER SETBACK ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY BOUNDARY FROM 35 FEET TO 17 FEET.
APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WILL ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING STORAGE BUILDINGS LOCATED INSIDE THE BOAT RACK AREA TO ENHANCE OPERATIONS.
THE SITE IS ACTUALLY LOCATED IN THE U-TIKI PROPERTY.
MARINEMAX OCCUPIES ABOUT 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITHIN THE U-TIKI PROPERTY,
[00:05:05]
INCLUDING A BOAT SERVICE YARD, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN.MARINEMAX PROVIDES THE ONLY SERVICE ACCESSIBLE HAUL OUT WELL IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER AND A FIRST CLASS RECREATIONAL BOAT SERVICE FACILITY.
THE MARINEMAX TEAM CONSISTS OF TWO SEPARATE DEPARTMENTS HERE.
THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT LOCATED IN THE BOAT YARD PRIMARILY ALL DAY, AND THE SALES AND ADMIN STAFF THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE OFFICE THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE MAP.
WITHOUT THE SERVICE SHEDS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE TONIGHT, THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES WOULD NEED TO WALK AROUND THE GATE.
YOU CAN SEE THEIR PATH AND TRAJECTORY THROUGH THIS YELLOW LINE.
IT WOULD JUST BE NOT EFFICIENT FOR OPERATIONS.
THEY'RE DOING VERY MINUTE TASKS ON A COMPUTER THAT WOULD ONLY TAKE ABOUT SECONDS TO MINUTES TO LOG INVENTORY OR ITEMIZATION, SO THIS IS WHY THESE SERVICE SHEDS ARE REALLY NEEDED.
ON TOP OF THAT, THIS WILL ALSO ENHANCE THE SERVICE TIMELINE AND DURATION FOR THESE BOATS FOR THE JUPITER COMMUNITY AS WELL, TOO.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON OUR SITE PLAN, WE ARE PROPOSING A 17-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SERVICE SHEDS TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE SIDE INTERIOR SETBACK REQUIRED BY CODE IS 10 FEET IN C2 ZONING DISTRICT.
WE'RE REQUIRED 35-FOOT SIDE CORNER SETBACK BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE'RE ADJACENT TO A RIGHT AWAY.
THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE CASE, PROBABLY THE ONLY CASE IN THE ENTIRE TOWN WHERE WE'RE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A BRIDGE, AND NOT ONLY JUST THE RIGHT AWAY FOR THE BRIDGE, IT'S THE RAMP THAT GOES OVER THE TOPS OF THE BUILDINGS.
IF YOU LOOK RIGHT OR LEFT, YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE THE BUILDINGS.
THE SIDE CORNER SETBACK, THE PROVISION IN THE CODE IS INTENDED TO PROTECT ROADWAY FRONTAGES.
HOWEVER, IN THIS UNIQUE CASE, THIS PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS A STANDARD CORNER LOT, AT LEAST IN THIS LOCATION HERE.
THEN WE HAVE SOME DECORATIVE ELEVATIONS.
THEY'RE A TASTEFUL DESIGN FOR THE SHEDS AND THE COLOR PALETTE WAS SELECTED JUST TO COINCIDE WITH THE U-TIKI BUILDING.
THEN SUPPLEMENTAL TO THIS REQUEST, WE'VE ALSO ADDED AND COORDINATED WITH THE REEF BALL FOUNDATION TO ADD ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES ALONG THE SEA WALL THERE.
IN ADDITION TO THIS REQUEST HERE.
THANK YOU, AND I'LL DEFER TO STAFF.
>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
FOR THE RECORD, GARRET WATSON WITH PLANNING AND ZONING.
AS THE APPLICANT NOTED, THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS TO AMEND AN EXISTING SMALL SCALE PUD TO REDUCE THE SIDE CORNER SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 17 FEET FOR SOME ACCESSORY STORAGE BUILDINGS.
IT IS CONTINGENT UPON TOWN COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AND FINDINGS THAT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IN THIS CASE, BEING PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND APPROVAL OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE WAIVER REQUEST.
DURING OUR REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR MARINEMAX, THE MARINA WAS ALREADY OPERATIONAL FOR U-TIKI, AND DURING OUR ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO TWEAK THE LAYOUT AND PROVIDE FOR A MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT ALLOWED FOR ACCESS FOR BOATS IN AND OUT ACROSS THE RIVER WALK, WE DISCOVERED THE NEED FOR THE SIDE CORNER SETBACK AS IT RELATES TO SOME EXISTING UNPERMITTED BUILDINGS.
THIS REQUESTED AMENDMENT IS REALLY THE FIRST STEP IN THAT PROCESS.
THE FIRST STEP IS REALLY TO ESTABLISH WHERE THOSE BUILDINGS CAN BE.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE SETBACK.
THE SECOND PART OF THAT PROCESS WILL BE TO COMPLETE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT ONCE WE KNOW WHAT THAT SETBACK WOULD BE.
THEN THE THIRD STEP OF THAT WOULD BE TO PROCESS BUILDING PERMITS TO MAKE THESE BUILDINGS LEGAL.
WE'RE REALLY AT THE FIRST STEP OF THIS PROCESS.
THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE REVIEWING TONIGHT.
SHOULD THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVE IT, WE'LL CONTINUE DOWN THAT PATH.
THE DRY DOCKS ON THIS SITE HAVE BEEN PRETTY UNDERUTILIZED FOR A REALLY LONG TIME UNTIL MARINEMAX TOOK OVER.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL DESIRED DURING THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF THE U-TIKI RESTAURANT WAS TO MAINTAIN THE OLD SEASPORT MARINA LOOK AND FEEL.
MARINEMAX SINCE THEY TOOK OVER, SOMETIME IN 2023, HAS BEEN UTILIZING THOSE DRY RACKS MORE CONSISTENTLY.
AS IT RELATES TO THE COM PLAN CONSISTENCY, THE PROPERTY'S DESIGNATED WITH RIVERWALK FLEX AND THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AND THIS PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE.
THEY HAVE ALSO PROVIDING, AS THE APPLICANT NOTED, A MARINE STEWARDSHIP OF DOING SOME ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES, WHICH FURTHERS COMPLIANCE WITH THE COM PLAN.
AS THE APPLICANT NOTED AS WELL, AND AS WHAT WE HAD NOTED IN THE REPORT, THE SIDE CORNER SETBACK ABUTS THE NEW US HIGHWAY 1 BRIDGE.
[00:10:03]
IT'S NOW OPEN, SO YOU CAN GO OVER IT AND SEE, BUT THERE IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT GRADE DIFFERENTIAL AND SETBACK ON THAT SIDE FROM THE ACTUAL EDGE OF PAVEMENT.WE TRAVELED IT TODAY TO LOOK AT THAT SIDE, AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE THAT AREA OVER THERE.
AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, WAIVER REQUESTS ARE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC BENEFIT.
THIS PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED WITH THE PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR SMALL SCALE PUD, THAT IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE INLET VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA.
A LOT OF THOSE PRINCIPLES HAD TO DO WITH BUILDING, MAINTAINING THE RIVER WALK, PROVIDING FOR WATER ORIENTED USES, PROVIDING FOR FACILITIES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS CASE, IT WAS REST ROOMS AVAILABLE AS THE MARINA RESTAURANT WAS OPEN.
THE SITE ALREADY CONTINUES TO PROVIDE ALL OF THOSE BENEFITS AS A BASELINE PUBLIC BENEFIT.
THEN ON TOP OF THAT WITH THE PROPOSED REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS DOING THE ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES.
IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE REEF MODULES ARE PUT IN PLACE, THAT THEY'RE MAINTAINED LONG-TERM, WE HAVE A CONDITION IN THE EXHIBIT FOR YOU TONIGHT THAT HAS THEM AS PART OF A MARINE STEWARDSHIP PLAN, AND THEN WE'VE ALSO CONDITIONED TO RECTIFY THE BUILDING PERMITTING ISSUE THAT WITHIN 60 DAYS, WE GET BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
WE EXPECT IF THIS IS APPROVED, THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD RATHER QUICKLY WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE REQUESTS GIVEN THE SITE PLAN AND THE BUILDING PERMITS, WE'RE COMMITTED TO DO THAT.
WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. TIME FOR COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF.
LET'S START ON MY LEFT. COMMISSIONER KEENAN.
>> I HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE REEF AND WHAT IT IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING?
>> THE QUESTION WAS REGARDING THE ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES.
YES. THE APPLICANT'S PROVIDED SOME ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES ON THE PLAN.
THAT'S A SITE PLAN IN YOUR PACKAGE.
THOSE ARE SOMETHING THAT THE TOWN HAS BEEN ENCOURAGING THROUGH FIRST, THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND NOW THROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED.
THEY ESSENTIALLY PROVIDE HABITAT FOR OYSTERS AND MARINE LIFE TO BEGIN TO ATTACH TO AS A WAY TO ENHANCE OUR WATERFRONT, PROVIDE SOME MORE HABITAT FOR MARINE ANIMALS.
>> IS THE PLACEMENT SIGNIFICANT WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICANT'S CONTRIBUTION?
>> COULD YOU DOUBLE CHECK YOUR MIC FOR ME REAL QUICK?
>> CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PLACEMENT?
>> SURE. WE'VE GONE THROUGH A NUMBER OF THESE AT THIS POINT AND WE DEFER TO THE REEF BALL FOUNDATION'S EXPERTISE.
THEY'RE WORKING WITH THIS PROJECT AS WELL AS THEY'VE WORKED WITH THE TOWN ON A FEW PROJECTS FOR PLACEMENT AND SOME OTHER APPLICANTS.
WE DEFER TO THEIR EXPERTISE AND THEIR EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD HERE AND WE WORK CLOSELY WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE ARE CITED APPROPRIATELY AND HAVE THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT.
>> I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER VINSON.
IT SAYS UNDER THE PLANNING THAT ORIGINALLY, THE CORNER SETBACK WAS MOVED FROM 35 TO 17 FEET, AND NOW WE'RE WANTING TO CUT THAT ALMOST IN HALF AGAIN.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION.
IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE CORNER SETBACK.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I'M NOT LOOKING AT IT, BUT THE SETBACK THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS 17 FEET, THE REQUIREMENT IS 35 FEET.
>> TO REDUCE THE SIDE CORNER SETBACK FROM 35 TO 17 FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
>> YES. THAT'S THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS THE REQUIREMENT IN THE TOWN CODE IS A 35-FOOT SIDE CORNER SETBACK AND THE BUILDINGS THEY WOULD LIKE TO PLACE AT A 17 SETBACK.
THEY'RE REDUCING IT TO THAT 17-FOOT MARK.
>> IS THERE ANY PLAN FOR ANY TYPE OF LANDSCAPING OR ANYTHING BECAUSE WHEN I WALK TO THE BACK OF THAT, IT LOOKS PRETTY ROUGH.
IT'S JUST BECAUSE IT'S OVERGROWN AND NOT LANDSCAPED IN THAT CORNER WHERE THE, I GUESS, IT'S A RAILROAD CAR SHIPPING CONTAINER THAT'S BEING USED TO WORK OUT OF THAT'S UP BY THE CORNER.
THAT LOOKS LIKE HALF OF IT SHOVED LIKE IN THE BUSHES.
>> YEAH. THE NATURE OF THE BOAT YARD THERE.
IT'S DIFFICULT TO FIND GOOD PLACEMENT FOR LANDSCAPING, BUT WE CAN ABSOLUTELY COMMIT TO SOME LOW LYING, LOW LEVEL PLANTINGS IN THE BACK IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
>> IF YOU'RE PASSING OVER THE BRIDGE AND YOU LOOK OVER THERE, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE BOATS, BUT EVENTUALLY,
[00:15:02]
YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO SEE THE GROUND OR DRIVING UP TO IT WHERE IT JUST LOOKS LIKE THAT WHOLE SIDE IS WHERE EVERYTHING ELSE LOOKS NICE, THAT WHOLE SIDE IS JUST NEGLECTED.I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY PLAN TO CLEAN IT UP AND/OR LANDSCAPE IT.
>> WE DO NEED TO VERIFY THAT FDOT DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANTINGS, ESPECIALLY RIGHT ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE, BUT WE CAN SATISFY THAT REQUEST.
>> SO FAR AS THE PERMITS ON THE BUILDING, WERE THERE THREE PREVIOUS BUILDINGS THERE OR TWO?
>> NO. IT WAS ALL THREE HERE THAT YOU SEE ON THE SITE NOW AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TONIGHT.
>> NO, THEY WERE NOT PERMITTED.
>> PRIOR TO PUTTING THOSE BUILDINGS THERE, WAS THERE PERMITTED BUILDINGS?
>> IT WAS JUST AN EMPTY BOAT RACK, NOT USED.
THE WHOLE BOAT YARD REALLY WASN'T UTILIZED.
>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS PUTTING A BUILDING AND NOT OBTAINING A PERMIT TO START WITH.
>> WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS NOW AND THAT'S WHY STAFF BROUGHT US HERE TODAY FOR THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT.
WE WERE, I GUESS, NOT AWARE OF THE SETBACK ISSUE THAT HAS AROSE.
>> IS ANYBODY WORKING OUT OF THOSE? I KNOW THE CAR, IT LOOKED LIKE THAT WAS A WORKSHOP.
>> NO. THE SERVICE BUILDINGS, LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE COMPUTERS IN THERE FOR VERY MINUTE, MINOR TASKS THAT TAKE SECONDS TO MINUTES, JUST FOR INVENTORY.
I DO HAVE THE MARINEMAX MANAGER, JOSH LEVINE HERE IN ATTENDANCE AS WELL TO ANSWER ANY OPERATIONAL QUESTIONS, BUT THEY'RE STRICTLY FOR STORAGE OR STRATEGIZING FOR THE DAY.
THERE'S NOT SOMEONE'S OFFICE IN THOSE BUILDINGS.
YOU SAID THAT THERE'S COMPUTERS IN THERE IN SOME OF THEM RIGHT NOW, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WITH THE NEW STRUCTURES, IS THAT THERE GOING TO BE ELECTRICAL AC OR PLUMBING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, OR ARE THERE SIMPLY GOING TO BE STORAGE SHEDS?
>> I BELIEVE THERE WILL BE AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT PULLED IF THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN PULLED BEFORE THIS WHOLE PROCESS STARTED, BUT THAT WOULD BE IT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
SINCE THE ACCESSORY BUILDING HAS TO BE SO ORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING.
I ACTUALLY WENT IN THE SERVICE MANAGER.
IT IS AN OFFICE. IT'S GOT TWO DESK, TWO CHAIRS, TWO COMPUTERS, LIGHT, AIR CONDITIONING.
IT IS NOT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.
I'M QUESTIONING THE DEFINITION OF HOW IT SHOULD BE UTILIZED IN THE PERMITS BEING REQUESTED WITHIN SIX DAYS.
IS IT FOR A COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING, OR IS IT GOING TO BE FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING KNOWING THAT IT DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING? THE OTHER BUILDING WAS ALSO A TECHNICIAN WORKING WITH A WORKBENCH.
IT HAD POWER AND EVERYTHING IN IT TOO.
I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW WE'RE UTILIZING THE DEFINITION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING FOR THIS PERMIT REQUEST.
>> ABSOLUTELY. LIKE I SAID, I HAVE JOSH LAVINE HERE, THE MANAGER MARINEMAX, SO HE'LL PROVIDE YOU A RESPONSE.
HELLO, JOSHUA LAVINE WITH MARINEMAX.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXACT DEFINITION OF OFFICE SPACE OR WHATNOT, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE SERVICE MANAGER HAS A MAIN OFFICE IN THE MAIN BUILDING THAT WAS INDICATED ON THE DISPLAY.
NO CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE ENTERING IN THAT SERVICE YARD.
WE'VE GOT SIGNAGE UP EVERYWHERE.
I THINK SOME OF YOU WALKED IN THERE, BUT THERE'S NO BUSINESS TO BE CONDUCTED IN THOSE OFFICES.
BUT THERE IS TERMINALS, THERE'S A DESK, THERE'S SEATS AND SO FORTH THAT ARE IN THERE, YES.
>> I WENT INTO THE MAIN BUILDING, MARINEMAX, AND I ASKED ABOUT IT AND THEY SAID, YOU HAD TO GO TALK TO THE SERVICE MANAGER OVER IN THE OTHER BUILDING.
>> NONE OF THEM THERE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT OUR PERMIT FOR REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACK.
I HAD TO GO BACK AND TALK TO THE SERVICE MANAGER ABOUT THAT WHO WAS IN THE OTHER BUILDING.
>> FAIR POINT. WE DIDN'T GO AROUND TELLING THE STAFF, HEY, HERE'S WHAT'S GOING ON, HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.
BUT IN ALL FAIR PURPOSES, THE SERVICE MANAGER'S DUTIES IS TO BE IN THAT YARD AT ALL TIMES.
IT'S A VERY DANGEROUS YARD. [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO. HIS MAIN OFFICE IS IN THE MAIN 2000-SQUARE-FOOT FACILITY.
IF YOU'RE A CUSTOMER CONDUCTING BUSINESS, I THINK I MET ONE OF YOUR CHAIR KAREN CAME IN TODAY. IT WAS SIMILAR.
COMING INTO THE OFFICE, WE DO OUR BUSINESS THERE.
BUT WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE MANAGEMENT PRESENCE, ESPECIALLY IN A SERVICE YARD.
IT'S TOO DANGEROUS OF A FACILITY NOT TO HAVE MANAGEMENT AT ALL TIMES OVER THERE.
>> WELL, LET ME ASK STAFF THEN, DOES THESE BUILDINGS CURRENTLY MEET THE DEFINITION OF A NECESSARY BUILDING?
>> IT'S INCIDENTAL TO THEIR OPERATIONS, SO WE CONSIDERED THEM ACCESSORY USE TO THAT STRUCTURE.
IF IT WERE TO BE USED AS OFFICE SPACE,
[00:20:02]
IT'D BE REQUIRED TO BE PARKED SEPARATELY.THERE'S CAPACITY ON THE SITE PLAN TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY HAD A PREVIOUS OFFICE APPROVAL.
THESE ARE CAPACITY TO DO THAT, BUT IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION WE'RE PROCESSING NOW, IT WAS TOLD US THAT THOSE BUILDINGS WERE STORED.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE TECHNICIAN WORKING IN HIS LAB WITH A WORKBENCH? DOES HE HAVE A SEPARATE OFFICE SOMEWHERE ELSE?
>> THE TECHNICIAN DOES NOT, NO.
>> HE DOESN'T HAVE AN OFFICE AT ALL.
>> BUT HE IS WORKING OUT OF THAT LONGER BUILDING TRAILER?
>> IT DEPENDS. AGAIN, COUNCILMEMBER KAREN, SHE CAME BY THERE.
THAT SPECIFIC UNIT HOUSES EVERYTHING FROM SPARE WIRE TO NUTS AND BOLTS AND THERE ARE SOME WORKBENCHES IN THERE.
BUT OUR TECHS ARE MOBILE TECHS.
WE'VE GOT SIX MOBILE SERVICE VANS.
A LOT OF WHAT YOU SEE THERE IS YOU NEED A WORKBENCH TO GATHER YOUR TOOLS OR GATHER YOUR MATERIALS FOR YOUR NEXT JOB, AND THEY'RE EITHER OUT ON THE ROAD OR THEY'RE WORKING IN THE SERVICE YARD.
I THINK A COUPLE OF THE VISITS THAT WE FACILITATED, THERE'S A NUMBER OF SERVICE TECHS.
WE HAVE 10 BY 10 TENTS THAT WE'RE WORKING OUT IN THE SERVICE YARD.
THEY DON'T WORK INSIDE THAT METAL CONIC BUILDING.
IT GETS TO BE 100 DEGREES AND THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY BAKE SOMEBODY INSIDE THERE.
>> I JUST CHALLENGE THE FACT THAT FROM THE DEFINITIONS, YOU DON'T APPEAR TO BE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
MAYBE SOME OTHER DEFINITION, OPERATIONAL SERVICE BUILDINGS, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DUNNING.
>> WELL, I REALLY LIKE THE REEF BALLS.
THAT'S A GREAT IDEA, AND I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE DOING THAT.
IT'S REALLY GOOD, AND I APPRECIATE SEEING THAT ON HERE.
WITH REGARDS TO ANY FEEDBACK FROM ANY BUSINESSES TO THE PUBLIC FROM THE APPLICANT OR STAFF, HAS ANYBODY HEARD ANYTHING POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE ABOUT THAT?
>> WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON IT.
>> GREAT. WITH ANYTHING, ONCE WE TRY TO GO AGAINST WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE FROM 70-38, I REALLY WORRY ABOUT CREEPAGE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS JUST A ONE-TIME DEAL.
I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO HEAR THAT AGAIN AND COUNCIL, HAVE TO DEAL WITH SOMETHING ELSE.
CAN WE WARD IT SUCH THAT IT'S JUST THAT WAY OR FOR THIS ONE PARTICULAR INCIDENCE OR WHAT?
>> IN TERMS OF LIMITING THE WAIVER REQUEST? CERTAINLY. YOU COULD LIMIT IT TO JUST THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN, AND SO THE WAIVER WOULD ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO THAT.
>> IF WE APPROVE THIS, WE'RE NOT SETTING A PRECEDENCE, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANOTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURE POP UP SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE SITE THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THAT AS WELL, IF YOU WANTED TO ADD THAT AS A CONDITION.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO IF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD.
>> JUST FOR YOUR ASSURANCE, THERE'S NO OTHER SITE WITH THESE CONDITIONS AT ALL NEXT TO THE BRIDGE HERE.
>> GREAT. I REALLY LIKE THE RIVER WALK AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO TIE IN, AND YOU PROBABLY CAN'T SHOW ME ANYTHING ON YOUR SLIDES HERE HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK.
YOU MENTIONED, THERE IS QUITE A DEBIT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BRIDGE AND WHERE THE RIVER WALK IS GOING TO BE.
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY RIGHT UP THERE TO THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> DOES MY MOUSE SHOW? OH, IT DOES.
>> THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHERE THE RIVER WALK GOES IN FRONT OF THE BOAT YARD, AND WERE YOU MENTIONING THIS AREA?
>> WELL, THIS AREA IS NOT OUR PROPERTY.
>> BUT YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH REGARDS TO PLANNING FOR THE RIVER WALK TOO, AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT OR SOMETHING, IS THAT RIGHT?
THERE'S TWO GATES ALONG THE FENCE THAT WOULD BE CLOSED DURING TIMES OF FORKLIFT OPERATION AT A MAXIMUM OF 10 MINUTES.
JUST TO ENSURE SAFETY OUT OF ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION.
WE DO HAVE AN OPERATIONAL PLAN THAT WE SUBMITTED TO STAFF PREVIOUSLY MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO BEFORE THIS REALLY PICKED UP SPEED.
>> SAFETY IS ALWAYS THE FIRST PRIORITY, SO I APPRECIATE THAT AND WORKING WITH STAFF ON THAT.
THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CASSATLY.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AS IT DEVELOPED.
THE 35-FOOT SETBACK WAS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE DRY DOCK STORAGE.
YOU THEN WENT AHEAD AND SAID, WE NEED MORE SPACE HERE.
WE'RE NOT USING THESE DRY DOCKS.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE LOWER DRY DOCKS HERE AND PUT THESE THREE BUILDINGS IN.
>> THE IDEA WAS THESE WERE SOME TYPE OF MODULAR BUILDINGS OR A PREFAB THING THAT YOU PUT UP THERE, CORRECT?
>> OKAY. NOW IT'S FOUND OUT THAT THEY NEED TO BE PERMITTED WHEN THE STAFF WENT THERE.
I THINK IT'S GREAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOME ARTIFICIAL REEFS FOR
[00:25:03]
THE FISH AND STUFF AND CONSIDERING THE LANDSCAPING THAT GOES ALONG THERE.HOW STRUCTURALLY SOUND ARE THESE GOING TO BE? WE GET A LOT OF STORMS. I'M JUST WONDERING THE STRUCTURAL STAND THIS WHEN YOU PUT SOMETHING UP THE MODULAR UNIT, ARE THEY HURRICANE PROOF? OR DO WE HAVE TO BRING THEM UP TO CODE [OVERLAPPING] SO THAT CAN WORK IN THEM?
>> THEY WILL BE UP TO CODE. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WILL REVIEW THESE PLANS OR THE PLAN INSPECTOR.
THEY WILL BE ANCHORED FOR WIND LOADS AND IT'LL GO THROUGH A FULL BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS.
>> JUST TO REITERATE WHAT RICHARD SAID, AS FAR AS YOU COULD TAKE MORE DRY DOCK STORAGE OUT AND PUT MORE UNITS UNDERNEATH OR [OVERLAPPING] WILL THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WILL NOT HEARD? I KNOW YOU WON'T GET RID OF THE PARKING SPACES BECAUSE YOU NEED THEM FOR THE RESTAURANT.
>> BUT ALSO THE DRY DOCK STORAGE, WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE 75 SPACES OF DRY DOCK STORAGE.
>> THAT'S HOW MANY YOU HAVE NOW?
>> YEAH. WE CANNOT REMOVE ANY.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KELSO.
>> YES, A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF.
IN READING THE HISTORY, IT TALKS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER EXTENSION ON 1-818 AND 731-19 TO MAINTAIN THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT A FUTURE OFFICE BUILDING ALONG A1 A FRONTAGE WAS TO EXPIRE ON 613-22.
DO THEY CURRENTLY HAVE AN ABILITY TO DO AN OFFICE BUILDING OR NO?
THEY'VE SINCE DONE SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THAT PLAN AS WELL.
>> MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, NO PLAN FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING IN THE FUTURE?
>> THERE COULD BE IN THE FUTURE, BUT THERE'S NO TALKS OF IT RIGHT NOW WHATSOEVER.
>> OKAY. THE REASON WHY I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT ALONG HIS QUESTIONING, WE HAVE THE DRY STORAGE RACKS, AND AFTER TALKING WITH YOU YESTERDAY THAT THE ANCILLARY BUILDINGS COULD BE AS TALL AS THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
WELL, HOW TALL COULD THIS POTENTIAL FUTURE STRUCTURE OF THE OFFICE BUILDING BE?
>> ANY SUBSEQUENT OFFICE BUILDING APPROVAL WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ITS OWN SITE PLAN APPLICATION PROCESS.
IF IT WAS A FORMAL OFFICE BUILDING, WE WOULD REVIEW IT AS A FORMAL OFFICE BUILDING.
AS IT RELATES TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, THEY'RE LIMITED BY THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY.
GIVEN THAT IT'S A ONE-STORY RESTAURANT, IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO ONE STORY.
>> THIS OFFICE BUILDING COULD NOT BECOME THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> YEAH. IT'S SUBORDINATE TO THE USE OF THE MARINA.
>> GREAT. THEN THE BLACK FENCE ALONG THE BACK SIDE OF THOSE ANCILLARY BUILDINGS, LIKE WHAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER.
IT'S LIKE THE GARBAGE ZONE, WHICH I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.
BUT IT'S ALSO VISIBLE THEN TO PEOPLE GOING OVER THE BRIDGE.
THAT BLACK FENCE THAT IS BACK THERE, IS THAT PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE BRIDGE AND THAT'S TEMPORARY OR IS IT A PERMANENT STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO BE AROUND THE MARINA?
>> IT'S OUR FENCE. BUT JUST LIKE I SAID, THE FDOT REQUIREMENTS ARE A LITTLE FINICKY, SO WE'LL HAVE TO VERIFY WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO ON THAT PROPERTY LINE FOR SHIELDING AND BUFFERING PURPOSES, WHICH WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH STAFF PREVIOUSLY COMING HERE TONIGHT ABOUT THAT CONSIDERATION.
>> MR. WATSON, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY LANDSCAPING ON THE ROADWAY SIDE?
>> THE VERSION OF THE PLANS THAT I WAS ABLE TO FIND ON OUR DRIVES WERE, THAT AREA IS A DRAINAGE POND TO SERVICE THE DRAINAGE FOR THAT PROJECT.
THERE'LL BE A PRETTY CONSIDERABLE AREA THAT'S GOING TO BE WET IN THAT AREA, BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE'S A TOP OF EMBANKMENT.
WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO WHAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE FROM DOT AND IF THERE'S ANY DISTANCES THERE.
BUT WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO THAT ISSUE.
>> BECAUSE AT MINIMUM, I'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE GREEN SCREENS THAT YOU CAN PUT ON THE FENCE SO THAT WAY AT LEAST IT'S ABSOLUTELY THROUGH IT.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IF YOU WANT TO GO THAT EXTRA MILE, WHICH WE WOULD APPRECIATE SOMETHING THAT'S EVEN A LITTLE BIT HIGHER BECAUSE AS YOU SAY, THE VISIBILITY IS FROM A TOP-DOWN.
>> ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.
>> BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THAT AREA TO BE JUST EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT LEFT.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I UNDERSTAND THAT.
WE JUST NEED TO NOT MAKE IT SO VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD.
>> THANKS. I JUST HAD A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS.
GARY, THIS IS FOR TOWN STAFF ON PAGE 3.
IT TALKS ABOUT THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR THE NUMBER OF DRY SLIPS WAS 250.
HOW WAS THAT POSSIBLE? BECAUSE WHEN I WALKED THAT SITE,
[00:30:01]
75 LOOKS LIKE IT'S MAXED OUT.WAS THIS BEFORE THERE WAS AN OFFICE BUILDING?
>> THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL SEASPOT MARINA.
SO THERE WAS ACTUALLY A VERY LARGE DRY DOCK THAT BASICALLY TOOK UP HALF OF WHERE THE RESTAURANT IS [OVERLAPPING] ALL THE WAY.
>> I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A BUILDING CODE OR A BUILDING DEPARTMENT QUESTION, BUT IT'S ALONG THE LINES OF SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
I THINK WE JUST OBVIOUSLY WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THE USE OF THOSE BUILDINGS BY STAFF AND IS THERE A POINT AT WHICH THEY BECOME NOT INCIDENTAL, AND IT BECOMES MORE OF OCCUPIED SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT REQUIRES SOME LIFE SAFETY AND OTHER BUILDING CODE ISSUES? I THINK I WAS HEARING SOME QUESTIONS UP HERE ABOUT THAT.
IS THERE A CLEAR LINE THAT TAKES THIS FROM INCIDENTAL OR ACCESSORY USE INTO OFFICE SPACE?
>> BUILDING OFFICIAL HERE, JIM BROWN, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS HERE AND HE CAN RESPOND TO THAT.
FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, WE LOOK AT REALLY WHAT THE USE OF THAT SPACE IS.
AS LONG AS IT CONTINUES TO SERVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE MARINA AND ITS USE AND ISN'T OCCUPIED BY ANOTHER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT USE, FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, WE'D STILL CONSIDER IT ACCESSORY TO THAT.
BUT FROM A BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERSPECTIVE WITH A TECHNICAL OCCUPANCY, THERE ARE SOME CHANGES AND DIFFERENCES.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
THE BUILDING CODE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THAT A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
WE WOULD GIVE IT ITS OWN OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION, WHETHER THAT'S A STORAGE FACILITY, BUSINESS, OR SO ON.
WE WOULD REVIEW IT AS SUCH AND EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A LIFE SAFETY ANALYSIS WITH IT.
>> NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE ALONG THOSE LINES YET?
>> OKAY. I'M ASSUMING THAT'S GOT TO OCCUR BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION AS PLANNING AND ZONING?
>> YOU'RE NOT APPROVING THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES, YOU'RE APPROVING THE SETBACK THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE BUILDINGS.
WE'RE GOING THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO REVIEW THE SITE PLANS.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE COMMISSION WANTS TO SEE, YOU COULD POSTPONE THE ITEM AND REQUEST THAT ALL THOSE DETAILS COME BEFORE YOU.
BUT OTHERWISE, IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT FOLLOWING THROUGH THE AUTHORITIES THAT STAFF HAS TO REVIEW THEM ADMINISTRATIVELY, WE'LL DO THAT REVIEW SUBSEQUENT TO THIS PROCESS BEING COMPLETED TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE SETBACK.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAD.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> NO COMMENTS. THEN LET'S COMMENTS AND DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> PART OF WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE NOW IS NOT ONLY THE SETBACK, BUT ALSO THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE TIED TO THAT SETBACK, IS THAT TRUE?
>> CONDITION NUMBER 5 IS WITHIN SIX DAYS TO APPROVE OF THE OWNERSHIP OBTAINED BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE ACCESSORY STORAGE BUILDINGS.
WILL THOSE BUILDINGS BE EVALUATED BY ENGINEERING BEFORE THAT PERMIT IS PULLED?
>> THE TOWN'S ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT?
>> THE TOWNS ENGINEERING, YES.
>> THAT CONDITION REQUIRES THE OBTAINING OF A BUILDING PERMIT, MEANING IT HAS TO GO THROUGH AND PASS ALL STAFF REVIEWS.
IT WILL GO THROUGH EVERY DEPARTMENT THAT THOSE TYPES OF BUILDINGS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH.
IT'S REQUIRED TO PASS ALL THEIR REVIEW.
>> THAT WILL BE AN ONSITE ASSESSMENT THEN BY TOWN ENGINEERING?
>> IT WOULD BE A REVIEW OF THE BUILDING PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT.
PALM BEACH COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD ALSO REVIEW THOSE PLANS AS WELL.
IF WE DETERMINED THAT WE NEEDED TO GO ON-SITE, THEN WE WOULD GO ON-SITE AS WELL.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE TO DELIBERATIONS ON THIS?
>> I THINK I'VE GOT SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
SORRY. I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING FOR A SETBACK ON THE THREE BUILDINGS.
THERE'S MORE THAN THREE BUILDINGS THERE. THERE'S STORAGE
>> CONTAINERS. ARE THOSE STORAGE CONTAINERS INCLUDED IN THIS? ARE THOSE STORAGE CONTAINERS EXEMPT FROM THE SETBACKS? IF THEY'RE DEEMED PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY.
ONE OF THEM, I BELIEVE, IS PERMANENT.
THE BIG BLUE, LOOKS LIKE A RAILROAD CONTAINER.
THEN AT THE VERY END AFTER THE THIRD BUILDING GOING TOWARDS THE WATER SIDE,
[00:35:06]
THEN THERE'S ANOTHER BEIGE METAL TEMPORARY CONTAINER, THEY'RE ALL ESSENTIALLY AT THE SAME SPOT THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE.>> THE BLUE ONE IS PERMANENT AND IT'S PART OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TONIGHT.
THE BEIGE ONE, WE CAN ENSURE THAT THAT WILL ADHERE TO THE SETBACK.
THE BEIGE ONE WAS NOT PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
>> IS THAT PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY?
>> THE BEIGE ONE IS TEMPORARY.
>> THE BUILDING THAT'S IN BETWEEN THE BLUE RAILROAD CAR AND THE FIRST WHITE BUILDING.
THERE'S A BUILDING IN BETWEEN THERE, A SMALLER ONE.
YOU HAVE THE BLUE ONE, AND THEN YOU HAVE A SMALL THAT LOOKS LIKE A SHED THAT MAY OR MAY NOT, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE TWO WHITE ONES, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE BEIGE CONTAINER, TEMPORARY.
>> WHAT I CAN SAY IS WE CAN ENSURE THAT ALL BUILDINGS HERE WILL MEET THAT SETBACK, THE ONES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING.
THE ONE IN BETWEEN THE BLUE SHIPPING CONTAINER AND THE WHITE STORAGE BUILDING, I'M ACTUALLY NOT SURE.
IT WASN'T OUT THERE WHEN I WAS THERE, SO IT MUST BE JUST TEMPORARY FOR BOAT YARD SERVICES.
>> THE BEIGE CONTAINER IS A RENTAL CONTAINER, JUST CURRENTLY FOR OVERFLOW.
THAT'S DEFINITELY TEMPORARILY.
THE ONE THAT'S SANDWICHED BETWEEN THE WHITE BUILDING AND THE SHIPPING CONTAINER, THAT'S LIKE A HOME DEPOT PLASTIC, VERY SMALL A FRAME STRUCTURE.
IT HOUSES A PRESSURE WASHER, HOSES, SOAPS FOR THE CLEANING DEPARTMENT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CLASSIFY THAT.
>> TO THE TOWN, DOES THAT COUNT AS ANOTHER BUILDING WITH SETBACKS OR WHAT, AND WHAT DO YOU DO?
>> IT'S A PRETTY BIG HOME DEPOT SHED.
>> YEAH. TYPICALLY, THOUGH, THOSE WOULD BE JUST CONSIDERED ANOTHER ACCESSORY USE.
SHEDS, OFTENTIMES, HAVE LESSER SETBACKS THAN GENERAL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
IN THIS CASE, THOUGH, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT CLOSER THAN THE OTHER BUILDINGS, THE SETBACK COULD APPLY TO IT.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THREE BUILDINGS OR HOW MANY MORE BUILDINGS WILL BE ADDED.
BY THE TIME WE GET THROUGH, WHEN WE HAVE TEMPORARY BUILDINGS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BECOME PERMANENT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED NOW AS TO WHAT THE MAX AMOUNT OF STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED TO BE?
>> WELL, JUST TO ASSURE YOU, WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR THE THREE BUILDINGS TONIGHT, BUT IF IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE, WE CAN ADD THAT CONDITION THAT THAT SETBACK WILL APPLY FOR ALL BUILDINGS.
>> TO THE TOWN, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS?
>> THAT'S HOW IT'S WRITTEN TODAY, SO THAT SETBACK WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ANY ACCESSORY BUILDING ON THAT SITE, THAT 17-FOOT SETBACK.
IF YOU WANTED TO LIMIT IT TO A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, YOU COULD DO THAT, BUT HOW IT'S WRITTEN IN HERE IS IT WILL APPLY TO ANY BUILDING.
>> THE OTHER BUILDING THAT'S IN BETWEEN, THE ONE THAT'S PERMANENT ISN'T REQUIRED TO HAVE ANY TYPE OF PERMIT OR ANYTHING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS HURRICANE STANDARDS OR BUILDING STANDARDS SAFETY.
>> THE ONE THAT THEY REFERENCED AS A SHED FOR POWER WASHING THINGS.
I'D DEFER TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THAT, I BELIEVE.
>> I'M GOING BY MY KNOWLEDGE, AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING, SO I APOLOGIZE.
WHEN I HAD JUST A REGULAR SHED PUT IN MY BACKYARD THAT WAS PROBABLY NOT EVEN FOUR FEET WIDE, AND I THINK 10-FEET LONG, VERY NARROW, I STILL HAD TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT.
I STILL HAD TO MEET HURRICANE CODES, AND THE BUILDING HAD TO MEET IT AND THEN THEM AUGURING IT INTO THE GROUND HAD TO MEET IT.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A HURRICANE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF DAMAGE IF YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT'S NOT PROPERLY INSTALLED BECAUSE IT'S A HOME DEPOT BUILDING.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT ON ALL OF THEM, INCLUDING THE TEMPORARY ONE, WHAT ARE THE LOGISTICS OF WHAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE IS DONE PROPERLY.
>> ANYTHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT ON SITE, WE'LL MAKE SURE IT GETS A PERMIT.
THERE ARE CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN THINGS IN THE BUILDING CODE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT REQUIRES A PERMIT THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND CONDITION NUMBER 5, THAT THOSE ARE OBTAINED.
>> JUST FOR ALSO INFORMATION, THE SHEDS THAT ARE LESS THAN 144 SQUARE FEET ARE REQUIRED ON A SIDE CORNER OR A 15-FOOT SETBACK.
ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE MEETING THAT CRITERIA FOR A STORAGE SHED FOR THE STANDARD CODE REQUIREMENTS, IT'D BE TWO FEET CLOSER THAN WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR UNLESS THERE'S A CONDITION PUT ON THIS APPROVAL.
[00:40:07]
>> I THINK THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE MORE QUESTION.
JUST TO CLARIFY, IN CONSIDERATION, THE BLUE STORAGE SHED THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THAT'S ONE OF THE BUILDINGS YOU'RE ASKING FOR AS WELL.
>> THAT ONE WILL BE INSPECTED AND PERMITTED BY THE TOWN AS WELL?
ACCESSORY BUILDING IS A TERM OF ART IN THE BUILDING CODE, IS IT NOT? IT'S WELL DEFINED.
>> SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION?
>> AN ACCESSORY BUILDING IS A TERM OF ART THAT'S DEFINED IN THE BUILDING CODE, IS IT NOT?
>> IT MAY BE, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A ZONING CODE PERSPECTIVE.
THE DEFINITION OF IT IS THAT IT'S ANCILLARY TO A PRIMARY USE, SO REALLY ANYTHING THAT SERVES THE FUNCTION.
IT'S A BIT CONFUSING, BUT MARINA ITSELF IS A USE AND THAT'S NOT JUST ONE BUILDING.
IT'S NOT AS CLEAN AS AN OFFICE BUILDING OR A RESTAURANT.
THINK OF IT MORE LIKE A RESTAURANT WITH OUTDOOR SEATING AND A BAR AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
MULTIPLE ASPECTS TO WHAT'S CONSIDERED A RESTAURANT, AND A MARINA IS THE SAME THING.
IT'S GOT SERVICE, RENTAL, SALES, DRY DOCKS, WET SLIPS, BUT ALL THOSE THINGS ARE UNDERNEATH THE CATEGORY OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A MARINA.
ALL THOSE USES YOU COULD CONSIDER AS ACCESSORY TO THE PRIMARY USE OF A MARINA, BUT THEY'RE ALL IN TOTALITY, THE USE OF A MARINA.
>> THANK YOU. I'M SEEING MISCOMMUNICATION OR ANSWERS THAT ARE NOT ALIGNING WITH THE SITE PLAN.
THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED DOES NOT SHOW THE BLUE BUILDING THAT'S SHOWING UP ON THE SCREEN, SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE CLARIFICATION.
>> THAT'S WHY I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS THE SHED, NOT THE BLUE BUILDING.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING ALL THOSE QUESTIONS.
>> THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED THAT'S BEFORE YOU.
THERE'S ANOTHER STRUCTURE THAT SHOWS UP ON THAT AREA THAT YOU JUST HAD BETWEEN THOSE THREE BUILDINGS AND THE DUMPSTER.
>> THE SITE PLAN THAT WE'VE PROVIDED, THE BLUE BUILDING IS THE ONE ON THE END THERE.
IT MUST HAVE MOVED AT SOME POINT.
>> COULD YOU POINT TO WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT?
>> THAT'S THE SHED. YES. BECAUSE YOU HAVE THREE WHITE SHEDS AND THEN YOU HAVE THE HOME DEPOT SHED, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE BLUE RAILROAD CONTAINER.
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE FIVE SEPARATE STRUCTURES.
>> OF COURSE, WE COMMIT TO THE SAME CONDITION THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
ALL BUILDINGS HERE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THEY WILL ALL NEED TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THEY'RE ANCHORED ANYWAYS, APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHICH WE WILL DO.
WE CAN COORDINATE A MEETING WITH STAFF ON SITE TO ENSURE THAT EVERY SINGLE BUILDING IS PERMITTED GOING FORWARD AND THAT WE MEET THE SETBACK THAT IS CONSIDERED TONIGHT, SHOULD IT BE APPROVED.
THAT'S WHAT I CAN SAY TO ANY MISCOMMUNICATION OR CONFUSION ON HOW MANY BUILDINGS THERE ARE OUT ON SITE RIGHT NOW.
>> WHEN I WAS OUT THERE TODAY, WHAT I SAW WAS TWO WHITE BUILDINGS, WHAT YOU REFERRED TO AS YOUR HOME DEPOT BUILDING, THE BIG BLUE, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT BOX CAR, AND THEN THE BEIGE TEMPORARY, SMALLER ONE, WHICH WAS MORE TOWARDS THE WATER SIDE.
THE BLUE ONE WAS THE FIRST ONE YOU CAME IN, AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS PRETTY MUCH JAMMED IN THE CORNER, WHICH YOU CAN SEE ON THIS PICTURE THAT'S HERE.
THEN THE HOME DEPOT ONE WAS SHOVED BACK IN BETWEEN IT, BUT SET BACK FURTHER.
IF YOU INCLUDE THE TEMPORARY ONE, FIVE.
>> WE'RE COMMITTED TO INCLUDING EVERY ACCESSORY BUILDING ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE, AND THEY CAN ALL BE GROUPED UNDER THE SAME SETBACK.
IS THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS OR SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS LIKE THIS GOVERNED BY THE BUILDING CODE OR BY PLANNING AND ZONING, OR EITHER.
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
THERE'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS, AND THERE'S BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE USE IS OF EACH STRUCTURE SO IT CAN BE CLASSIFIED APPROPRIATELY FOR A ZONING PERSPECTIVE AS TO WHAT THE PARKING AND THE TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
[00:45:02]
IF THERE'S FUNCTIONAL USE GOING ON IN THE STORAGE BUILDINGS LIKE A WORKSHOP AND ACTIVITIES, AND IT'S MORE LIKE A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE, WOULD BE PARKED AT A MINIMUM OF ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 500 SQUARE FEET.IF IT'S AN OFFICE USE, IT WOULD BE ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 200.
IF IT'S STORAGE AND ONLY STORAGE, NO ACTIVITIES GOING ON IN THE BUILDING, LIKE A PURE SHED USE, IT WOULD BE ONE PER 1,000.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE DO ON THE ZONING SIDE.
WHEN IT GOES TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THEY'LL LOOK AT WHAT WE APPROVED AND WHAT THEY'VE REPRESENTED IN THEIR DRAWINGS AND APPLY THE BUILDING CODE APPLICABLE TO THAT TYPE OF OCCUPANCY.
IF THERE'S MORE SPECIFICS, I'M SURE JIM COULD DETAIL THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
EVERYONE LOOKS AT IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, AND THERE'S DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES.
>> WOULD THERE BE A REASON TO PUT THIS ON HOLD UNTIL CLARIFICATION?
>> IT CERTAINLY SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SOME AMBIGUITY AROUND SOME THINGS, BUT I CAN SEE THAT SIDE.
I COULD ALSO SEE THE SIDE THAT WE HAVE A VERY COMPETENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
IF THAT'S A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WE PLACE ON THIS, THEY'RE GOING TO RUN IT TO THE GROUND AND MAKE SURE IT'S IN COMPLIANCE.
>> NO, I FEEL CERTAIN ABOUT THAT.
IT'S JUST I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WERE GOING TO AGREE TO GO WITH THIS, THAT I WANT THE STIPULATIONS ON THERE BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT STATED NOR IS THE DIAGRAM?
>> I GUESS THAT THAT WAS THE REASON FOR MY QUESTION.
IS A CONTAINER CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE? THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S COVERED POTENTIALLY BETWEEN ZONING AND BUILDING CODES.
IT HASN'T BEEN, UNTIL TONIGHT, IDENTIFIED AND A QUESTION, I THINK TO ALL OF US HERE ON PLANNING AND ZONING.
>> JUST I GUESS, TO BE CLEAR, WE PAUSED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLANNING PROCESS WHEN WE DISCOVERED THE SETBACK ISSUE.
WE STILL HAVE YET TO GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE PROCESS, ESTABLISH A PARKING, AND REALLY GO THROUGH THE ENTIRETY OF THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS, BUT BEFORE WE DID THAT, WE NEEDED TO KNOW WHERE THESE BUILDINGS COULD BE PUT.
REALLY, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ESTABLISHING TONIGHT IS WHAT'S THE SETBACK FOR THOSE BUILDINGS? THEN WE'LL PERFECT THAT IN ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLANNING PROCESS.
UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME CONDITIONS THAT YOU WANT TO ENSURE HAPPEN AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, WE'LL CONTINUE ON WITH THE FEEDBACK FROM TONIGHT AND MAKE SURE THOSE ARE INCORPORATED THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
WE'LL COMMIT TO JUST THREE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
ANY BUILDING EXCESS OF THREE WE'LL REMOVE FROM THE SITE.
>> THANK YOU. LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER KEENAN.
DELIBERATIONS, COMMENTS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION?
>> I'D LIKE TO SHARPEN THE FOCUS ON EXACTLY WHAT IT IS WE ARE CONSIDERING.
I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE THAT WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING TONIGHT IS SIMPLY THE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE CHANGE IN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
>> NOTHING MORE. OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE MANY MORE QUESTIONS AND ISSUES POPPING UP LEFT AND RIGHT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF OUR FOCUS IS THAT NARROW, THAT QUESTION IS MORE EASILY DEALT WITH THAN MANY OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS WE'VE BROUGHT UP TONIGHT.
PERHAPS WE HAVE TO ISOLATE THAT ONE AND MOVE AHEAD WITH THAT ONE AND TRUST THAT OUR STAFF WILL LOOK INTO THE REST OF IT.
I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO PROCEED AT THIS POINT, BUT THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER VINSON.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT HE SAID.
IF THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE APPROVING IS A SETBACK, THEN THE REST OF IT COULD BE WORKED OUT LATER DOWN THE ROAD.
>> IT WOULD BE THE SETBACK WITH CONDITIONS?
>> YEAH. VERIFYING WHAT NUMBER OF BUILDINGS ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT DOING A SETBACK ON, OR ARE WE GOING TO OPEN IT UP THAT THEY CAN ADD LATER OR WHAT? I DON'T KNOW. THAT MAY BE DOWN THE ROAD ALSO.
>> I CONCUR WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THUS FAR THAT IF IT IS SIMPLY THE SETBACK WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS EVENING, THEN I THINK WE HAVE A VERY COMPETENT BUILDING STAFF THAT WILL MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS FOLLOWED THEREAFTER, BUT FOR NOW, LET'S JUST LOOK AT THE SETBACK AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT WITH THE CONDITIONS.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GUISINGER.
>> I CONCUR WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT WAS JUST SAID.
I THINK WE MAYBE NEED TO ADD THE FENCE SHIELDING SOMEBODY MENTIONED UP HERE,
[00:50:04]
IF THAT'S POSSIBLE WITH THE DOT AND THE LANDSCAPING TO STAFF SATISFACTION, BUT I'M FINE MOVING FORWARD WITH JUST THE DEFINITION THAT WE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT ON THE SETBACK AND NOT GETTING INTO THE BUILDING ISSUES. COMMISSIONER DUNNING?>> YES. BASED ON WHAT MY COLLEAGUES SAID, I SUPPORT EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE SAID, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE INTERJECT THE LANGUAGE THAT GARRETT TALKED ABOUT WITH REGARDS TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
IT'S ONLY FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION AND IT CAN'T BE USED ANY PLACE ELSE.
ANY OF MY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT OR WANT TO HELP ME OUT ON THAT, I APPRECIATE IT.
>> I AGREE WITH JUST TO THAT ONE AREA, BUT THE 35, THE17-FOOT SETBACK IS FINE.
>> I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUES.
I THINK THE 17-FOOT SETBACK IS FINE WITH THE SCREENING AND OR LANDSCAPING ALONG THAT BACKSIDE.
I HAD ONE OTHER THOUGHT, I JUST LOST IT.
I DO THINK THAT THE VALUE OF THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION IS THAT AS YOU GO FORWARD WITH THE NEXT SET OF PLANS, YOU KNOW WHAT THINGS ARE COMING.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING JUST THE THREE STRUCTURES, BUT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THE FOUR STRUCTURES IS FINE.
I'D RATHER YOU HAVE THAT EXTRA STRUCTURE TO HAVE ALL YOUR EQUIPMENT IN THAN HAVE IT OUT WHERE IT'S VISIBLE AND MORE OF AN EYE SORE, SO I'M NOT SO HOT ON NECESSARILY JUST THE THREE STRUCTURES.
>> VERY GOOD. WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO CRAFT A MOTION THAT WE COULD VOTE ON?
>> I'LL GIVE IT A SHOT. I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE 35, THE 17-FOOT SETBACK GOING WITH THE STAFFS CONDITIONS AND KEEPING IT LIMITED TO THAT AREA.
>> ADDING THE FENCE SHIELDING AND THE LANDSCAPING.
>> ADDING THE FENCE SHIELDING AND ANY LANDSCAPING THAT THEY COULD.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER GUISINGER. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> MR. CHAIR. CAN WE JUST GET A CLARIFICATION, WHEN YOU REFER TO THIS AREA, WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
>> THE AREA WHERE THE BUILDINGS ARE NOW.
FOR INSTANCE, THERE SEEMS TO BE A WALL TO THE SOUTH SIDE WITH A TRIANGULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY THERE.
NOT TO EXTEND IT OUT THERE BECAUSE THEY COULD DO THAT WITHOUT LIMITING TRAFFIC PARKING SPACES.
>> WHERE THEY'RE SHOWING THE BUILDINGS ON THE PLAN THE DUMPSTER?
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM.
>> THANK YOU, ALL [BACKGROUND].
[3. 30 E Riverside Drive]
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
THE NEXT ITEM WE'VE GOT IS 30 EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE.
THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST, QUASI JUDICIAL, ANY EX PARTE DISCLOSURES.
LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> I DROVE THROUGH THE AREA, BUT I DID NOT WALK BACK IN THERE.
>> I LOOKED AT IT ON GOOGLE EARTH.
>> I KNOW THE AREA WELL OVER THERE THERE AND THE PADDLE BOARD THERE QUITE A BIT.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER DUNNING.
>> I VISITED THE PROPERTY TWICE.
I TALKED WITH THE OWNERS PARENTS, VERY DELIGHTFUL PEOPLE, AND I TALKED WITH STAFF ABOUT THIS MATTER.
>> THANK YOU. I SPOKE WITH STAFF ABOUT IT. COMMISSIONER GEISINGER?
NO ONE WAS HOME, SO I DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE DECK.
>> I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT I HAVE NOT ACCESSED THE PROPERTY.
>> I DO. I DROVE BY THE SITE TODAY.
I REALLY WASN'T ABLE TO SEE THAT MUCH, BUT WHEN YOU GO OVER THE BRIDGE, YOU CAN LOOK BACK AT IT.
I DROVE THE BRIDGE A COUPLE OF TIMES TODAY.
JUST TRYING TO SEE WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT AND THEN I USED GOOGLE EARTH.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KEENAN.
[00:55:01]
>> THANK YOU. APPLICANT, COULD YOU PLEASE MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION?
>> WELL, THANK YOU, CHAIR, AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, ZACH SARA, CUTLER AND HEARING AND JUPITER.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. MICHAEL NOLAN AND TAMMY NOLAN.
UNFORTUNATELY, THEY CANNOT BE HERE TONIGHT.
JUST AS A BACKGROUND TO THEM, THEY OWN SPECIALTY SCHOOLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY SO THEY'RE TRAVELING MOST OF THE YEAR.
BUT ON BEHALF OF THEM, THEY THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR THEIR HOME AT 30 EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE.
LOCATED JUST WEST OF THE NORTH ALTERNATE A1A BRIDGE.
MR. AND, MRS. NOLAN PURCHASED THE HOME IN 2017 WITH A VISION TO RESTORE THE OLD FLORIDA FEEL.
THE HOME WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED IN 1967, SO RATHER THAN TEARING IT DOWN BUILDING NEW, THEY RENOVATED WHAT WAS THERE.
LIKE I SAID, THEY ARE TRAVELING MOST OF THE YEAR.
THEY ULTIMATELY PUT THEIR TRUST INTO A CONTRACTOR TO BRING THAT VISION THAT I MENTIONED TO LIFE AND THEY WERE UNFORTUNATELY MISLED BY THIS CONTRACTOR.
THIS CONTRACTOR EXCEEDED HIS SCOPE OF WORK.
HE ASSURED THAT HE ASSURED THE OWNERS THAT EVERYTHING HE WAS DOING WAS BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW.
EVERYTHING WAS TO CODE AND THAT JUST SIMPLY WAS NOT THE CASE, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE IN THIS IMAGE.
THEY ARE PURSUING LITIGATION AGAINST A CONTRACTOR, BUT THEY HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR DEEPEST APOLOGIES FOR THEIR NAME BEING CONNECTED TO THIS CONTRACTOR'S WORK.
THEY'RE QUITE FRANKLY EMBARRASSED.
MR. AND MRS. NOLAN ARE GOOD PEOPLE.
THEY TRY TO DO EVERYTHING THE RIGHT WAY AND ALL THEY WANT TO DO IN THIS SITUATION IS WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT IS TO PRESENT YOU WITH A PLAN THAT WE BELIEVE BEST REMEDIES THIS SITUATION.
I'LL TOUCH ON OUR SITE PLAN FOR A SECOND AND THEN I'LL JUMP TO IT A LITTLE BIT LATER.
BUT OUR DESIGN OF THE MARGINAL DOCK THAT WE'RE REQUESTING ENSURES THE LEAST IMPACTFUL SOLUTION TO THE WATERWAY AND NEIGHBORS.
THE VARIANCE WE'RE REQUESTING TONIGHT IS TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE DOCK LANDWARD BEYOND THE SEA WALL CAP AT A MAXIMUM OF 2.6 FEET AT ITS GREATEST DISTANCE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE SHOWN IN BLUE.
IT'S VERY MINIMAL IMPACT TO THE SITE HERE.
THIS REQUEST IS ASSOCIATED WITH THREE SEPARATE CODE PROVISIONS, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND BEFORE WE JUMP FORWARD INTO THE PRESENTATION.
HERE'S THE REST OF THE DOCK JUST OUTLINED.
THE THREE CODE SECTIONS THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM ONE ANOTHER AND YOU'LL UNDERSTAND AS I GO THROUGH THIS HOW THEY'RE ALL LINKED TO OUR APPLICATION HERE.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
THIS REQUIRES A DECK TO HAVE AT LEAST 7.5 FEET OF SETBACK AREA FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
THIS IS, OF COURSE, MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND DOES NOT DELINEATE ANY WATERFRONT PROPERTY OR INLAND PROPERTY.
IT'S ALL GENERAL ACROSS ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, EVERY SINGLE HOME, WHICH WE MEET, BY THE WAY, WE ACTUALLY EXCEED THAT, BUT I'LL SAVE THAT FOR LATER.
BUT THE NEXT PROVISION IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN A DECK AND A DOCK.
THE ONLY CONNECTION THAT IS PERMITTED BY CODE IS A FOUR FOOT WIDE WALKWAY, WHICH WE ALSO PROVIDE IN OUR PLAN.
THIS LAST ONE IS WHERE THE CONFLICT ARISES, IT'S A DEFINITION PER CODE OF A MARGINAL DOCK.
IT MEANS A DOCK LOCATED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND PARALLEL TO A SEA WALL OR BULKHEAD.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE NUMBER 1 CODE SECTION THAT I PROVIDED ON THE SCREEN AND THE NUMBER 3, THEY'RE NOT RELATED.
THE SETBACK FROM THE DECK TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS 7.5 FEET AND THE MARGINAL DOCK MUST BE ADJACENT TO A SEA WALL OR COMPLETELY WATER WARD.
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT'S SAYING.
IN OUR CASE, I JUST WANT TO GO OFF FOR TWO SECONDS HERE.
IN OUR CASE, THE PROPERTY LINE DIRECTLY OVERLAPS THE SEA WALL CAP.
WHAT IF THERE'S A CASE WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS 10 FEET WATERWARD BEYOND THE SEA WALL CAP? THE DECK THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WOULD STILL MEET THAT 7.5 FEET, EVEN IF IT'S RIGHT AT THE SEA WALL CAP.
NOW THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF THE CODE, THAT WOULD NEVER BE ACTUALLY APPROVED, BUT THAT'S A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE TONIGHT.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT ON HOW THESE CODE PROVISIONS MIXED TOGETHER.
GOING BACK TO OUR SITE PLAN, WHAT WE'RE PROVIDING, WE ARE PROVIDING THE 7.5 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE DECK TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
WE'RE ACTUALLY EXCEEDING THAT.
WE'RE PROVIDING 7.5 FEET BETWEEN THE DOCK AND THE DECK, NOT THE DECK AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
[01:00:01]
THE DECK TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS 10-11 FEET.WE ARE PROVIDING THE ONE FOUR FOOT WALKWAY CONNECTING THE DECK TO THE DOCK.
THEN WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR THIS PLAN THAT STAFF HAS LAID OUT IN THEIR STAFF REPORT.
BUT I MIGHT MENTION THAT EACH AND EVERY SOLUTION PROVED TO CAUSE A GREATER IMPACT TO THE WATERWAY AND UNDERLYING SEA GRASSES THAN WHAT WE ARE SHOWING YOU HERE TONIGHT.
EVEN ON PAGE 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES AND I, THIS DESIGN THAT WE'RE PRESENTING HERE TONIGHT CONTRIBUTES TO A MORE AESTHETIC AND LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY IMPACTFUL SOLUTION.
STAFF IS IN AGREEANCE THAT THIS ULTIMATELY IS THE BEST DESIGN, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THE VARIANCE CRITERIA WHICH I WILL MOVE FORWARD HERE.
THEN IN ORDER TO CORRECT THE ILLEGAL WORK DONE BY THE CONTRACTOR, WE HAVE STRATEGICALLY DESIGNED THE NEW MARGINAL DOCK TO ALIGN WITH THE ANGLE OF THE HOME AND TOOK CONSERVATIVE MEASURES TO ENSURE THE SETBACK PURSUANT TO THE CODE IS MET, AND WE EXCEED THAT, AS I MENTIONED, A TRADITIONAL L SHAPED DOCK DESIGN WOULD RESTRICT WATERWAY ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH AND ADDITIONAL DOCK AREA OVER WATER AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THAT'S A NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH JUST BEYOND THAT PIN.
AS I FINISH THIS PRESENTATION, OUTLINING THE CRITERIA, I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT VARIANCES ARE TOUGH REQUIRES THE APPLICANT OR OWNER, IN THIS CASE, MICHAEL AND TAMMY NOLAN TO PRESENT HARDSHIP OF SEVEN CRITERIA ITEMS OUTLINED IN THE CODE.
WE WRITE OUR PROJECT NARRATIVE, WE SUBMIT THAT TO THE TOWN.
THE STAFF PROVIDES THEIR OPINION ON THESE ITEMS. WE PROVIDE OURS.
STAFF HAS AGREED THAT WE SATISFY MOST OF THE ITEMS IN THE SEVEN CRITERIA LISTED AND WE WOULD ARGUE THAT WE PROVIDE HARDSHIP FOR ALL.
I'LL JUST START OUT WITH THE ONES THAT WE SATISFIED.
I'LL HIGHLIGHT THESE TWO ITEMS. THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT FOR THE LONG RANGE PLAN IN JUPITER, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE COMPATIBLE WITH. THAT'S WHAT THE TOWN IS SAYING.
THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSES OF THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
IN MY MONOLOGUE EARLIER, THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO, THAT THIS PLAN THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TONIGHT MEETS THE FULL INTENT OF THE CODE.
THEN THE ITEMS THAT WE WERE NOT SATISFIED BY STAFF.
FIRST ONE BEING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND.
I'M NOT SURE OF ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL PENINSULA WITH A PRIVATE DRIVE AND MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE TOWN.
I THINK IT'S THE ONLY ONE ACTUALLY, BUT IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION WHICH CALLS FOR UNIQUE DESIGN STRATEGIES IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION.
THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
I'LL SAY THAT AN ALTERNATIVE DOCK DESIGN ON THIS UNIQUE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE WOULD RESULT IN GREATER IMPACT TO THE DOCK AREA OVER WATER.
WE'RE ONLY PROVIDING 132 SQUARE FEET OF DOCK AREA OVER WATER.
THE CODE ALLOWS FOR 200 SQUARE FEET, SO IT'S AN ADDED BENEFIT OF WHAT THIS PROPOSAL IS AND HOW WE'VE STRATEGICALLY DESIGNED THIS DOCK TO REDUCE ALL IMPACTS AND THIS IS THE GREATEST BENEFIT THAT WE CAN PROVIDE HERE.
THE VARIANCE CRITERIA, STAFF DOES AGREE THAT THIS PROPOSAL MEETS THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE CODE AS I DID MENTION.
THEN THE LAST ITEM, THE VARIANCE GRANTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY THE MINIMUM THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY DO.
THIS DESIGN WAS A LONG PROCESS TO RETROFIT THE CONDITION THAT THE CONTRACTOR LEFT US IN AND THE PORTION OF THE DOCK LANDWARD IS EXTREMELY MINIMAL AS YOU SAW IN THE LAST GRAPHIC AND SHOULD THIS VARIANCE BE APPROVED, IT WILL ENSURE THAT THE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU WITH THE GREATEST BENEFIT TO THE WATERWAY AND NEIGHBORS HAS BEEN SELECTED.
I'LL CLOSE WITH THE REEF BALL FOUNDATION.
WE JUST, OF COURSE, IN SIMILAR TO THE LAST APPLICATION, WE'RE ALSO COORDINATING WITH THE REEF BALL FOUNDATION TO INSTALL ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES ALONG THE SEA WALL HERE TO PROMOTE LIVING ECOSYSTEM.
THANK YOU. I WILL DEFER TO STAFF AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK.
FOR THE RECORD, JENNA JOHNSTON WITH PLANNING AND ZONING.
AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO SECTIONS 27-26-26 B16 AND 27-38-84 4B,
[01:05:07]
PERMITTING THE ENCROACHMENT OF A MARGINAL DOCK, APPROXIMATELY 2.6 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT REAR PATIO SETBACK.IN 2021, AS DISCUSSED, OWNER HAD SUBMITTED A PERMIT FOR A SIX BY 50 FOOT MARGINAL DOCK THAT WAS DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH CODE AND WAS APPROVED BY STAFF.
AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION IN 2022, TOWN DISCOVERED THAT THE DOCK WAS BUILT OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH THE APPROVED PERMIT AND TOWN CODE AS SHOWN ON THE AERIAL ON PAGE 26 OF THE PACKET AND PROVIDED IN THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, THE UNPERMITTED POOL DECK WAS BUILT TO EXPAND OVER THE REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT REAR SETBACK.
IT CONNECTED WITH A MARGINAL DOCK AND ESSENTIALLY CREATED A VERY LARGE DECK AND DOCK.
IF GRANTED THE VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A DESIGN THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE UNPERMITTED SECTIONS OF DECK WHILE PRESERVING SMALL PORTIONS OF THE DOCK THAT ENCROACH INTO THE REAR SETBACK.
THE PORTIONS OF PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT CAN BE SEEN ON PAGE 28 OF THE PACKET.
IT'S THE TRIANGLES SHADED AND RED IN THAT PACKET AND ALSO WERE PROVIDED IN THE PRESENTATION.
THE TWO CODE SECTIONS THAT ARE PART OF THIS VARIANCE DESCRIBE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPERTIES DECK AND DOCK.
SECTION 27-38-84 4B REQUIRES A 7.5 FOOT REAR PATIO SETBACK.
SECTION 27-26-26 B16 REQUIRES THAT THE ONLY PORTION OF THE DOCK PERMITTED TO PASS THROUGH THE REAR SETBACK IS A FOUR FOOT DOCK ACCESS WALKWAY, CONNECTING A DOCK TO A PATIO OR HOME.
IF GRANTED THE VARIANCE TO THESE SECTIONS, THE PROPOSED DESIGN WOULD RESULT IN THE MARGINAL DOCK ENCROACHING INTO THE REAR SETBACK, APPROXIMATELY 2.6 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND 1.2 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE BULKHEAD CAP.
IF DENIED, THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO REMOVE THE AREAS OF ENCROACHMENT OVER THE BULKHEAD FROM THE DOCK DESIGN.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION PER THE SEVEN CRITERIA DETAILED IN THE TOWN'S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND HAVE COME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS.
THE FIRST CRITERIA ASKS WHETHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
STAFF FINDS THIS CRITERIA TO HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
ALL PROPERTIES IN THE TOWN'S RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ARE REQUIRED A 7.5 FOOT REAR PATIO SETBACK UNLESS THEY'RE PART OF A PUD, OR UNLESS THEY ABOVE A 50 FOOT PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, NEITHER OF WHICH APPLY IN THIS CASE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE OWNER WAS ISSUED A PERMIT FOR MARGINAL DOCK THAT DID MEET TOWN CODE.
SECOND CRITERIA ASKED WHETHER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RESULT OF THE OWNER.
THIS IS INAPPLICABLE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
THIRD CRITERIA ASKED WHETHER THE CODE'S LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF COMMON RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHERS IN THE SAME DISTRICT.
STAFF FINDS THIS CRITERIA TO HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
THE OWNER IS ABLE TO DEVELOP A MARGINAL DOCK PER TOWN CODE AS EVIDENCED BY THE PERMIT THAT WAS APPROVED BY TOWN STAFF IN 2022.
FOURTH CRITERIA, ASKS WHETHER THE VARIANCE GRANTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE, THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
STAFF NOTES THIS HAS NOT BEEN MET AS THE OWNER ALREADY HAS THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND AS THEY HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND A FUNCTIONING MARGINAL DOCK.
FIFTH CRITERIA, ASKS OF THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
STAFF FINDS THIS CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT SPECIFY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
ADDITIONALLY, AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT, IF THE VARIANCE WERE TO BE GRANTED, THE OWNER HAS COMMITTED TO INSTALLING ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES AND PROVIDING A MARINE STORAGE SHIP PLAN FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THESE MODULES.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED OF THE PROPERTY PER CODE, BUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE MODULES WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH POLICIES FOUND IN THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IF THE BOARD SUPPORTS THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WHICH FURTHER THE PROPERTY'S CONFORMANCE SUCH AS THE INSTALLATION OF PAP AND MANGROVE PLANTINGS ALONG A PORTION OF THE BULKHEAD.
SIXTH CRITERIA, ASK THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSES OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
STAFF HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THIS CRITERIA IS MET.
THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK CODE IS TO PROVIDE A 7.5 FOOT OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE POOL DECK AND THE DOCK.
THE INTENT OF PROVIDING THIS OPEN SPACE IS TO CREATE A NATURALIZED AND PERMEABLE EDGE TO THE WATERFRONT WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THIS PROPOSED DESIGN.
IF THE BOARD SUPPORTS THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED A CONDITION REQUIRING ANY ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED 7.5 FEET FROM THE BULKHEAD CAP AND HAS RECOMMENDED BUFFER PLANTINGS IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THIS GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE, THAT THE TOWN CODE CONTINUES TO BE MET.
THE SEVENTH AND FINAL CRITERIA ASKS WHETHER THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
STAFF FINDS THAT THIS CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET.
AS DISCUSSED, THE OWNER HAS AGREED TO INSTALL ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES WHICH
[01:10:01]
WILL PROMOTE SHORELINE STABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MARINE BENEFITS.THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH RECENT MARINE PROJECTS AS THE TOWN HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTING ARTIFICIAL REEF MODULES AND LOCATIONS WHERE MARINE STRUCTURES EXIST.
THIS IS TO ESTABLISH OUR LIVING SHORELINE.
REEF BALL FOUNDATION, AS DISCUSSED, HAS PROVIDED A LETTER STATING THAT THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND LOCATION OF THE REEF MODULES WOULD PROVIDE FOR EXCELLENT MARINE HABITAT AT THIS PROPERTY.
AS PROPOSED, THE REQUEST IS ANTICIPATED TO RESULT IN A POSITIVE ENHANCEMENT TO THE MARINE ECOLOGY AND BENEFIT THE PUBLIC.
>> AS DISCUSSED, THE OWNER MUST SATISFY ALL SEVEN CRITERIA FOR THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IN ORDER FOR THE VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED.
FROM THIS ANALYSIS, STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE VARIANCE SATISFIES ONLY THREE OF THE SEVEN CRITERIA.
BUT SHOULD THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FIND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE REQUIRED CRITERIA TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD ADD SIX CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
FIRST CONDITION WOULD BE THAT NO STRUCTURE OTHER THAN THE 4' DOCK ACCESS WALKWAY, AND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED POOL CATCH BASIN BE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH INTO THE 7.5' OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE APPROVED DECK AND THE DOCK.
THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE SIX CRITERIA AND IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REMAINS IN HARMONY WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE, PROVIDING THAT 7.5' OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE DECK AND THE DOCK.
CONDITIONS 2 AND 3 REQUIRE THAT THE OWNER INSTALL AND MAINTAIN RIPRAP ALONG AT LEAST 50% OF THE BULKHEAD, AND THE PLANTING OF MANGROVES, ALONG AT LEAST 10%.
THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE PLANTING OF NATIVE TREES AND HEDGES, PROVIDING A TRANSITIONAL UPLAND BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DECK AND DOCK.
THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON CRITERIA 6 AND 7, ENSURING THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND PROVIDING A PUBLIC BENEFIT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE MEANINGFUL SHORELINE STABILIZATION AND AN INCREASED LIVING SHORELINE.
CONDITIONS 4 AND 5 REQUIRE THAT THE OWNER SUBMIT A PERMIT AND MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED DECK MODIFICATIONS WITHIN A 60 AND 120-DAY TIMELINE.
THEN THE FINAL CONDITIONS REQUIRE THAT THE AGENT SUBMIT A DRAFT MARINE STEWARDSHIP PLAN TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.
AGAIN, THIS CONDITION IS A RECOMMENDATION TO COMPLY WITH CRITERIA 5, FURTHERING THE PROPERTIES CONFORMANCE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
TO CONCLUDE, JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY NOTE THAT THERE WERE SOME ISSUES WITH THE PUBLIC NOTICE SIGNAGE.
THE SIGNS WERE POSTED TWO WEEKS AGO, BUT WE WERE NOTIFIED LAST WEEK THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THEM HAD COME DOWN.
THEY WERE QUICK TO PUT IT BACK UP IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS.
IN ADDITION TO THESE SIGNS, THERE'S PUBLIC NOTICE THROUGH THE PALM BEACH POST, AND THERE WERE MAILERS SENT TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
BUT I'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THIS APPLICATION, AND WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? COMMISSIONER KEENAN, LET'S START WITH YOU.
>> JENNA, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FOUR OF THE SEVEN CRITERIA HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
>> YES. ONE OF THEM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
>> ONE OF THEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. WHY IS THAT NOT APPLICABLE?
>> BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE, SO THE OWNER COULDN'T BE AT FOR THEM.
>> IN YOUR REVIEW OF THIS, COULD YOU PLEASE RANK THEM FOR ME? WHICH ONE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT YET UNSATISFIED OF THE SEVEN CONDITIONS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE?
>> TYPICALLY, THE HIGHEST ORDER WOULD BE DEFERRING TO THE COMP PLAN POLICIES.
THAT'S THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE TOWN.
TYPICALLY COMP PLAN CONSISTENCY WOULD RANK IS MOST IMPORTANT.
INTENT IS PROBABLY A CLOSE SECOND TO THAT.
THE INTENT OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
BEYOND THAT, YOU'VE HAD VARIOUS OTHER VARIANCES IN TOWN AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS, LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS, THOSE CAN BE DIFFICULT CRITERIA TO MEET.
THEY'RE VERY SITE-SPECIFIC AND EVERY VARIANCE IS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
BUT I WOULD SAY COMP PLAN, INTENT AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CONDITION.
>> I'M SORRY, YOU WERE ANSWERING ME OBJECTIVELY.
I WAS JUST THINKING IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
>> I WOULD CONTINUE TO RANK THEM.
FOR ALL VARIANCES, IN REALLY ANY APPLICATION, COMPLAINT CONSISTENCY IS VERY IMPORTANT.
THE INTENT OF MEETING THE CODE AND THEN MEETING THE LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CODE WOULD FOLLOW BEHIND THE INTENT.
>> THANKS, COMMISSIONER KELSO.
[01:15:02]
>> WITH THE PLANTING OF THE MANGROVES, IT SAYS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE TO THE NORTH THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE PLANTING.
ARE THEY GOING TO BE PLANTING ANY? DOES THAT COVER THE WHOLE PERCENTAGE?
>> THERE'S A PERCENTAGE OF MANGROVES ON-SITE IN THAT NORTHERN POCKET THAT EXISTS.
THERE WILL BE SOME RIPRAP THAT WILL BE REQUIRED IN THAT AREA MOST LIKELY BEING HAND-PLACED.
THE 10% WOULD LIKELY BE ON THE VERY SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER PORTION OF RIPRAP THAT'S LIKELY AS A RESULT OF THIS, AND THERE'S SOME MANGROVES ON THE SOUTH SIDE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS.
THAT WOULD BE MOST LIKELY IN THAT AREA, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN JUST YET.
THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE WOULD GET IF THIS WAS APPROVED.
WE WOULD GET A PLAN THAT WOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE SATISFY THESE.
>> THE POSITION OF THE BOAT AND THE DOCK AGE REALLY ISN'T UP FOR DEBATE, IS IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE ONE AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING, BUT TO ME, I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT THERE'S A POINT TO IT BECAUSE THE DOCK IS ALREADY THERE AND THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM.
THE PROBLEM IS THE CONNECTION FROM THE PATIO DECK TO THE DOCK AND NOT HAVING AN OPEN SPACE FOR FILTRATION OF WATER AND WHATEVER, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S NOT EXACTLY CORRECT.
FOR THE RECORD, DONALDSON, HEARING FOR THE RECORD.
REALLY, THE OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE DECK AND THE DOCK MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CODE, WHICH IS THE INTENT, AS TOLD BY STAFF, IS A 7.5' SPACE.
WE MAINTAIN, IF NOT MORE THAN 7.5' OF GREEN SPACE.
OUR DOCK IS A MARGINAL DOCK OR A MARGINAL WHARF.
IT RUNS PARALLEL TO THE SHORELINE.
THAT IS THE DOCK, IT'S LINEAR, IT RUNS ALONG THE EDGE OF THE LINE.
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DECK AND THAT DOCK IS ONLY 4'.
NOT ONLY DOES THE DECK MEET THE SETBACK, THE DOCK BEATS THE SETBACK, THE GREEN SPACE IN BETWEEN THE DECK, AND WHERE WE'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE MARGINAL DOCK.
THE MARGINAL DOCK SIMPLY ENCROACHES LANDWARD, A LITTLE BIT MORE, I THINK ABOUT UP TO 2' AT A POINT BECAUSE IT'S AT AN ANGLE, ENCROACHES LANDWARD MORE.
BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, WE'VE INCREASED THE SETBACK OF OUR MAIN DECK FOR THE POOL SO THAT WE MAINTAIN WHAT STAFF'S DESIRE WAS, WHICH WAS TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7.5'.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
>> WE'RE REFERRING TO THE REVISION, NOT CURRENT.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR WITH THIS REVISION.
THE CODE SECTIONS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH ARE VERY, VERY CHALLENGING BECAUSE THE SECTION DEALING WITH DECKS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DOCKS.
IT HAS TO DO WITH A 7.5' SETBACK FOR ANY POOL DECK ANYWHERE IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER UNLESS IT HAS THE ABILITY TO BE REDUCED FOR OPEN SPACE.
BUT IT APPLIES TO EVERY DECK IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS ON THE WATER.
THEN THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR THE 4' CONNECTION AND WE MEET THAT.
THE DIFFICULTY HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM MARGINAL DOCK.
BUT SEE THE CODE DOES NOT IN ANY PLACE, NOT IN ONE PLACE IN THE ENTIRE CODE, OTHER THAN PERHAPS SOMEONE'S INTERPRETATION, DOES NOT SAY WHERE A SEA WALL CAP NEEDS TO BE.
IT TELLS ME THAT A MARGINAL DECK HAS TO BE BASICALLY SEAWARD.
IT BEGINS AT THE SEA WALL CAP AND GOES OUTWARD.
WELL, THERE'S NOTHING. IN FACT, THERE ARE MANY MARGINAL DECKS IN THIS TOWN THAT AREN'T SITTING ON THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
THEY'RE LANDWARD OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND THERE'S RIPRAP IN FRONT OF THEM.
WE'RE IN A VERY STRANGE PORTION OF THE SECTION OF THE CODE.
WE BELIEVE, I THINK, A STAFF HAS POINTED OUT, THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE PROVISIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE INTENT.
VARIANCES THAT WE UNDERSTAND ARE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT AND WE DON'T WANT TO DEBATE THAT, BUT THE END RESULT HERE, NOT ONLY IS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE,
[01:20:02]
IT ALSO PROVIDES MORE OPEN SPACE AND MORE GREEN SPACE AND WE THINK MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CODEWAY.SORRY I WENT ON FOR A WHILE, BUT I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION A LITTLE BIT MORE.
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS MARGINAL DECK, HAPPY TO ANSWER IT.
>> IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY WE DIDN'T JUST GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN THAT WAS PRE-APPROVED IN 2022? WAS IT BECAUSE WASN'T A MARGIN?
>> BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE TOWN IN 2022, HAD THE MARGINAL DECK BASICALLY 100% PARALLEL AND TOTALLY ON TOP OF THE SEA WALL CAP.
ZACK, MAYBE YOU CAN PUT THIS UP ON THE SCREEN FOR ME.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO DO IS WE WANT TO HAVE THE MARGINAL DOCK PARALLEL TO THE HOUSE BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY ALL OF THE POOL WAS BUILT, THAT'S THE WAY ALL OF THE OTHER STRUCTURES WERE BUILT.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE, ALL OF THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS, THE DECKS, AND THE MARGINAL WHARF, PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER.
WE ARE CLEARLY CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE.
WE GO FROM BASICALLY ZERO ENCROACHMENT LANDWARD OF THE SEA WALL CAP TO A LITTLE BIT OVER 1 OR 2', IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT.
BUT WE'RE MAINTAINING THE GREEN SPACE EVERYWHERE.
>> I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO MORE.
>> THANKS, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
REGARDING THE CRITERIA, THERE'S SEVEN OF WHICH, WHICH WE'RE THROWING OUT ONE OF THEM BECAUSE IT DOESN'T APPLY.
AGAIN, NOT GOING INTO SPECIFICS.
THREE OF THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.
IF YOU LOOK AT IT AS A GLASS HALF FULL GLASS HALF EMPTY, I'M AN OPTIMIST.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE HALFWAY THERE, BUT SOME WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE STILL.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GUISINGER.
>> MY MIC'S ON. THE DOCK IS CURRENTLY PERMITTED, IS IT PER PERMIT AS IT IS CURRENTLY PLACED ON THE CAP OF THE SEA WALL?
>> NO. IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PERMIT EXACTLY IN ITS SHAPE.
IT WAS PERMITTED, AS THE APPLICANT NOTED, DIRECTLY PARALLEL TO THE SEA WALL.
THE DECKING ONLY ENCROACHED TO THE AREA OVER THE CAP, BUT IT DID NOT GO PAST THE CAP OR LANDWARD.
>> THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY POSITIONED REQUIRES THEN THAT IT ERODES INTO THE 7.5' FROM THE SEA WALL CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. IT DOESN'T MATCH WHAT WAS PERMITTED, SO THAT WILL HAVE TO BE.
>> DOES THAT REQUIRE VARIANCE IN ITSELF, THEN, THE DOCK?
>> NO, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GO OUT ANY FURTHER THAN WHAT WAS PERMITTED.
IT DOESN'T GO OUT ANY FURTHER THAN 5' FROM THE SEA WALL CAP.
THE ONLY PORTION THAT REQUIRES A VARIANCE ARE THOSE RED TRIANGULAR AREAS ON THE PLANE.
>> I JUST WANT TO GO IT WAS IT PER PERMIT. HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT?
>> YES. THEY'LL HAVE TO GET A REVISION TO THAT PERMIT BUT THEY'LL ALSO HAVE TO GET REVISIONS TO THE DECK PERMIT AND ALL THOSE OTHER ELEMENTS.
>> ONE LAST QUESTION TO STAFF.
I'VE HEARD LITERAL INTERPRETATION, CHALLENGING CODES.
DOES SECTION 27 REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION TO MINIMIZE ANY MISINTERPRETATION OF THE CODE WITH RESPECT TO EITHER DOCK PLACEMENT OR ENCROACHMENT ONTO THE SETBACK? I'M HEARING DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF IT AND SOMEWHAT CONFUSING.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CODE ITSELF IS PRISTINE ENOUGH THAT WE GET OUT OF THESE MISINTERPRETATIONS.
>> WHAT WAS THE CODE SECTION YOU'RE REFERRING TO?
>> WELL, THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT SECTIONS THAT WAS LISTED HERE WHERE THEY HAD MISINTERPRETATION.
>> THOSE TRIANGLES THAT ARE SHOWN BASED ON THE DEFINITION AND MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE AND THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.
THEY'RE NOT OVER WATER. THEY'RE NOT A DOCK.
THEY ARE ATTACHED TO A DOCK FOR THE DEFINITION.
THAT'S WHY THE VARIANCE IS IN REVERSIBLE WE NORMALLY SEE.
NORMALLY, YOU WOULD SEE THE DECK COMING FURTHER FROM THE POOL CLOSER TO THE WATER, AND IT WOULD BE A 2.5' ENCROACHMENT FROM THE POOL AREA TOWARDS THE WATER.
[01:25:01]
BUT THIS IS QUITE UNUSUAL BECAUSE IT'S A DOCK THAT'S EXPANDED OVER THE CAP AND THEN EXTENDING FURTHER INTO THE SETBACK AREA WHERE THE DECK STANDARDS APPLY.>> SECTION 27 ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES IT FROM A CODE STANDPOINT, ARE THEY FOLLOWED?
>> I WOULD SAY NO BECAUSE SECTION 27-1 DOES NOT APPLY.
THIS IS NOT YOUR TIME TO SPEAK.
>> I'D LIKE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT.
>> AS YOU SEE IN THE APPLICANT'S SPECIFICATION, THEY ACTUALLY INCLUDE ALSO THE DEFINITION OF DOCK, WHICH IS ON PAGE 34 AND THE BOTTOM RIGHT, 34 46, AND A PRIVATE DOCK I'M SORRY, THAT'S NOT THERE.
>> NO, BOTTOM OF 26, YOU HAVE DOCK.
>> AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, SORRY, INCLUDES ALSO THE DEFINITION OF DOCK.
>> THIS GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLEX AS YOU GO DOWN THE ROAD.
IN ALL THE WORK WE DO, THERE ARE PROVISIONS WHERE WE HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR INTERPRETATION.
THIS PROPERTY IS ON A WATERWAY, SO IT SHOULD HAVE A T OR L-SHAPED DOCK.
THERE'S A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS, AND THE STAFF WHEN THEY REVIEWED THE DOCK PERMIT, FELT IT WAS BENEFICIAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTY FURTHER TO THE NORTH NOT TO HAVE THE T OR L-SHAPED DOCK THAT EXTENDED THE DOCK FACILITY IN THE BOAT MOORING SPACE ITSELF FURTHER INTO THE WATER, POTENTIALLY IMPEDING THE ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY.
BUT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO RECONFIGURE WHAT IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED AS A T OR L DOC TO BE PUT IN A MARGINAL CONFIGURATION.
FOR THE CODE, A MARGINAL DOCK IS APPLICABLE TO CANALS.
BUT WE USE THAT FLEXIBILITY AND WE APPLIED THAT TO THE DOCK PERMIT.
THEN IT JUST MORPHED FROM THERE WITH THE DESIGN AND THEN HOW THE DOCK MERGED INTO THE WHOLE POOL AREA AND THE DECK FOR WHICH THERE WASN'T A PERMIT EITHER.
IT WAS A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY GET A DEC PERMIT BUT THAT DID NOT OCCUR.
THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WERE SHOWN IN THE POOL PERMIT, BUT THEY WEREN'T PERMITTED AS PART OF THE POOL PERMIT.
WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THESE DEFINITIONS IN COMBINATION.
THE DOCK IS THE OVERWATER PORTION.
THOSE THREE TRIANGLES THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT FOR THAT DEFINITION, IN MY OPINION, AS THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THE TOWN, THAT PORTION IS NOT A DOCK BECAUSE IT'S NOT OVER WATER.
NOW, SPEAKING IN THE SUBJECT MATTER AROUND THE BULKHEAD AND THE CAP ASSOCIATED WITH THE BULKHEAD, AS THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS PRESENTED, THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHERE THAT CAN BE LOCATED AND WHETHER IT CAN BE WITHIN THE SETBACK AREA OR A DECK.
BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF PROTECTING PROPERTY FROM SHORELINE EROSION AND OTHER ISSUES, WE APPLY A REASONABLE STANDARD ONCE AGAIN, THAT A CAP THAT'S REASONABLE IN SIZE, NOT THAT'S EXCESSIVELY WIDE BEYOND ITS STRUCTURAL NEEDS, CAN BE PERMITTED BECAUSE IT'S JUST AN ESSENTIAL ITEM OF THAT BULKHEAD.
WE HAVE HAD SOME PEOPLE TRY TO MAKE WIDER CAPS TO TRY TO EXPAND THEIR DOCKS IN A LOT OF CASES, THOSE ARE MARGINAL DOCKS.
IT WAS RATHER COMPLEX TO NAVIGATE THIS ONE AND WE TRIED TO BOIL IT DOWN AS SIMPLY AS WE COULD AND AVOID SOME OF THE THINGS I JUST TOLD YOU.
BUT IN LIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY THAT WE HAVE SOME LATITUDE WITH.
OUR HANDS ARE TIED IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY, AND WE ALWAYS TRY TO BE AS REASONABLE AS POSSIBLE IN APPLYING THOSE WHEN WE REVIEW PERMITS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT EXACTLY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, BUT I JUST [INAUDIBLE].
>> NO, YOU DID. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION AND THE CLARIFICATION, SO I THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB.
I APPRECIATE IT. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DUNNING.
>> WELL, AS MY COLLEAGUE, STATED A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE, I THINK, BUT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.
WITH REGARDS TO THE APPLICANT, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT THE STAFF HAS BROUGHT UP HERE? SOME OF IT I DON'T THINK IT'S SUBJECTIVE.
SOME OF THERE'S A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR.
WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN'T FOLLOW THE STAFF'S CRITERIA THAT THEY'VE GIVEN.
I THINK THEY'VE GIVEN YOU SOME LATITUDE.
[01:30:02]
>> WELL, I THINK THAT STAFF HAS ALSO SAID THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE.
THEY'VE ALSO SAID IT'S THE BEST ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTION.
THEY'VE ALSO SAID THE DOCK DOESN'T GO AS FAR OUT INTO THE WATER, SO THERE'S LESS OF AN IMPACT TO THE WATER.
THIS IS CLEARLY, IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, THIS IS A CASE WHERE THERE IS SOME AMBIGUITY OF A CODE.
THE ISSUE HERE IS THE 7.5 FEET OF GREEN SPACE.
THAT SEEMS TO BE, AND WE'RE MEETING THAT, AND WE'RE ACHIEVING IT.
THE DECK SETBACK IS RIGHT, THE WALK THROUGH THE DECK IS RIGHT.
THE ISSUE IS ONLY THIS DEFINITION OF WHAT A MARGINAL DOCK CAN BE.
BECAUSE THE DEFINITION SAYS THAT A MARGINAL DOCK IS BASICALLY SEAWARD OF THE SEAWALL CAP.
WE'RE SUGGESTING WE'RE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THAT THE SEAWALL CAP HAS TO BE ON THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
THE SEAWALL CAP DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ON THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
THERE'S NO DEFINITION OF A CODE THAT SAYS A SEAWALL CAP CAN'T BE FURTHER INTO THE PROPERTY. I COULDN'T BE.
THERE ARE MANY PLACES WHERE SEAWALL CAPS HAVE BEEN BUILT INTO THE PROPERTY.
RIP RAP THEN GOING DOWN TO THE EDGE OF WATER WHICH MIGHT BE AT THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH MIGHT PUT THE SEA WALL CAP THREE FEET INTO THE PROPERTY, AND MY MARGINAL WHARF COULD START RIGHT AT THAT SEA WALL CAP AND COULD GO OUT FIVE FEET, SO IT MIGHT ONLY OVERHANG THE WATER BY TWO FEET.
THAT WOULD REDUCE THAT GREEN SPACE THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT FROM BEING 7.5 FEET TO BEING 4.5 FEET, AND IT WOULD BE 100% COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE.
IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE BECAUSE THE CODE DOES NOT SAY WHERE THAT MARGINAL DOC.
ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BETWEEN US, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED AND STAFF HAS STIPULATED IN THEIR STAFF REPORT, IT'S A BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING AS FAR INTO THE WATER, WHICH I WOULD THINK EVERYONE WOULD SAY IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.
IF IT'S OVER THE WATER, THERE'S LESS LIGHT GETTING TO THE SEA GRASSES AND EVERYTHING ELSE AS IT RELATES TO THAT PARTICULAR IMPACT.
>> JOHN, WE USE THE SAME SET OF STANDARDS FOR EVERYONE WHEN THEY COME UP.
NOBODY'S DIFFERENT. WE HAVE THE SAME SET OF STANDARDS.
THIS IS THE CRITERIA THAT WE USE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WHAT YOU'RE ASKING TO DO IS FOR US TO NEGATE ALL OF HIS STAFF'S HARD WORK AND SAY, HEY, LISTEN, I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
YOU'RE HELPING THE ENVIRONMENT.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD PRESIDENCE IN MY MIND.
>> NO. WE'RE SAYING THAT WE BELIEVE THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE'RE ON A PENINSULA, IT'S A VERY UNUSUAL SHAPED AREA THAT WE'RE DOING A MARGINAL WHARF, THAT WE HAVE AN ANGLED PROPERTY BOUNDARY THAT IS IT'S SOMEWHAT UNIQUE, AND WE'RE MEETING NOT ONLY THE INTENT OF THE CAP PLAN, BUT I THINK THE INTENT OF THE CODE.
THE CHALLENGE IS WE'RE DEALING WITH A VARIANT.
>> I WORRIED THAT THIS IS GOING TO STAND ON ITS HEAD, OUR CRITERIA, AND WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. LET'S SEE, COMMISSIONER CASSALTY.
>> THANK YOU. I KNOW THIS PROPERTY WELL. I LIVE NEAR THERE.
THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB RESTORING THE HOUSE AND KEEPING UP WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND KEEPING THE OLDER DESIGNS, OLD FAR DESIGNS INVOLVED, PARTICULARLY SOME OF THE BRICKWORK IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
I HAVE SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS.
WE'RE LOOKING AT SIX-FOOT OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE POOL AND THE MARGINAL DOCK.
WHY IS THAT SIX FEET VERSUS 7.5? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THE QUESTION I'M ASKING?
>> YES. BECAUSE THAT WAS PERMITTED AND MEASURED FROM THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE.
>> WHEN WE WENT BACK TO THIS AND WE GO TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION, AS THE APPLICANT INDICATED, THEY ARE ACTUALLY THE DECK AREA AROUND THE POOL IS ACTUALLY SET BACK MORE THAN IT NEEDS TO BE IN MOST LOCATIONS.
BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THEY WERE APPLYING FOR THIS VARIANCE, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THE BOARD SUPPORTED AND FOUND A WAY TO ACCEPTING THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIONS OF MEETING THE CRITERIA, THAT THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THAT 7.5 WIDTH WOULD BE ACTUAL OPEN AREA AND NOT SUBJECT TO THESE FINER ISSUES RELATED TO THE CAP OF THE BULKHEAD BEING WITHIN IT.
THAT DOES APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES, BUT TRYING TO BE MORE PURE, WE WOULD GET THE 7.5 FEET IN ALL OTHER LOCATIONS.
[01:35:03]
IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THAT PORTION WAS ALREADY BUILT AND WITHIN THAT AREA.>> MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THE POOL.
>> JUST TO GO BACK OVER HOW THE POOL WAS PERMITTED AND APPROVED.
THE MARGINAL DOCK WAS PERMITTED AND APPROVED.
YOU DIDN'T DO THE T BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE TO THE NORTH SO THEY CAN GET THEIR BOAT IN AND OUT. I GET ALL THAT.
HOW WAS THIS DISCOVERED THAT THE DECK WENT STRAIGHT OUT TO THE MARGINAL DOCK?
>> OUR NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF WAS CALLED IN FOR A DOCK INSPECTION, DISCOVERED WHAT YOU SEE ON THE AERIAL.
>> SUBSEQUENT TO THE DOCK BEING APPROVED, THE PERMIT WAS CLOSED.
THEY WENT OUT TO INSPECT THAT, OR THIS WAS SPONTANEOUS INSPECTION.
THE NEXT STEP TO THAT IS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN THEY'LL CALL IN FOR A FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE THE PERMITS ACTUALLY CLOSED.
IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT OUR STAFF DISCOVERED THAT THE REST OF THE SITE HAD BEEN DECKED AS IT SHOWS UP ON THE AERIAL.
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS NOT FINAL.
>> IT WAS NOT FINAL OUT. NO. IT'S STILL ON HOLD.
>> IT MAY BE ACTUALLY FIRED AT THIS POINT.
>> YEAH. I GET THE IDEA OF WANTING TO HAVE THAT EXTRA SPACE THERE TO SQUARE IT OFF.
I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KELSO?
>> YES. THE PROBLEM IS THE AREA THAT IS OVER THE BULKHEAD.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE THAT SECTION REMOVED, OR IS THERE A WIDTH STANDARD THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THAT AND REQUIRE THE WHOLE DOCK TO BE MOVED OUT?
>> REALLY, IT'S NOT THE SECTION THAT'S OVER THE PHYSICAL BULKHEAD, IT'S THE SECTION THAT'S LANDWARD OF THE EDGE OF THE BULKHEAD.
>> I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THE SECTION THAT'S IN QUESTION, THAT IS NOT ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS.
COULD THAT AREA BE TAKEN OFF, WHICH IS ABOUT 18% OF THE DOCK, AND THEN HAVE THE PYLONS THERE MOVED IN SO IT IS NOT LANDWARD OF THE BULKHEAD? WOULD THAT BE THE ACCEPTABLE?
>> YEAH. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WAS PERMITTED.
>> BUT MY QUESTION IS THEN THE DECK ITSELF THEN WOULD BE NARROWER.
IS THERE ANY WITH REGULATIONS THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THAT FROM HAPPENING, OR WOULD THEY HAVE TO MOVE OUT THE WHOLE DOCK TO KEEP IT THAT SAME WAY?
>> THE QUESTION REALLY IS, IS THERE A MINIMUM WIDTH TO A MARGINAL DOCK?
>> GOT IT. NO, THERE'S NOT A MINIMUM WIDTH.
IT DEPENDS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
I'VE SEEN THEM IN VERY NARROW AREAS BEING JUST TWO-FOOT SECTION, A 1.5 FOOT SECTION OFF OF A SEA WALL TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO A ELEVATOR-STYLE LIFT.
IT'S REALLY ON A SITE BY SITE, BUT THERE IS NO MINIMUM.
>> THAT'S I MEAN. TECHNICALLY, WE COULD JUST AS A CONDITION, REMOVE THAT SECTION THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE SO THEN IT IS NOT LANDWARD OF THE BULKHEAD.
>> BUT ESSENTIALLY DENYING THE VARIANCE.
>> RIGHT. OKAY. ON CONDITION 2B, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT.
IF YOU COULD EXPRESS THAT TO ME.
IT SAYS NATIVE TREES AND HEDGES PROVIDING A TRANSITIONAL UPLAND BUFFER IN THE ENTIRE AREA BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DOCK AND DECK DESIGN MODIFICATION. WHAT WOULD THAT BE?
>> THAT'S PLANTINGS WITHIN THE 7.5-FOOT ZONE.
THE IDEA BEHIND THAT IS THAT THAT ZONE WAS CREATED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A SETBACK FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES, FOR SOFTENING ALONG THE WATERFRONT, REALLY EXCLUSIVELY, IT'S ABOUT SOFTENING THE WATERFRONT AND REDUCING THOSE HARDENED EDGES.
IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS MEETING THE INTENT OF THE CODE, AS NUMBER CRITERIA SIX REQUIRES, CONDITION 2B WAS THAT.
>> BECAUSE I GUESS MY QUESTION AND ASIDE FOR THE APPLICANT IS I COULD SEE HEDGES, BUT NATIVE TREES SO WOULD THAT NOT BLOCK THEIR VIEW OF OFF THEIR PROPERTY?
>> THOSE COULD BE SMALL TREES OR PALM TREES.
THERE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE LARGE CANOPY TREES OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
>> THAT WAS A CONSIDERATION WE MADE STAFF AWARE OF, AND THEY AGREED THAT WE WOULD COORDINATE THE REQUIRED PLANTINGS SHOULD THIS GET APPROVED IN THAT AREA.
> OKAY. THANK YOU. THEN ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU AS THE APPLICANT.
[01:40:06]
YOU SAID THE OWNERS, WE'RE SORRY THAT THIS HAPPENED AND UNDERSTANDABLY.BUT THE THING I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS IN JUPITER, A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GO ON WHEN THE OWNERS ARE NOT THERE.
IN FACT, MOST OF THEM DO BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE BOTHERED BY IT.
BUT USUALLY, THERE IS A CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS REPORT THAT CONTAINS COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF PICTURES SO THAT WAY THE OWNER CAN SEE FROM AFAR WHAT'S GOING ON.
DID THEY NOT GET THESE REPORTS FROM THEIR CONTRACTOR?
>> NO, THEY DID. THE ISSUE IS THAT THE OWNERS WEREN'T AWARE OF THE CODE REGULATIONS, AND THE CONTRACTOR WAS ASSURING THEM THAT EVERYTHING MET CODE, EVERYTHING WAS PERMITTED, AND EVERYTHING WAS DONE BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW.
THEY WERE AWARE OF WHAT WAS BEING BUILT.
IT WAS JUST THEY DIDN'T THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF THE CODE AND THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
>> I GUESS I CAN UNDERSTAND THEM NOT KNOWING THE CODES BECAUSE NO ONE USUALLY DOES OTHER THAN THOSE THAT HAVE TO.
BUT YOU GET THE PLANS AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE THIS IS A PRETTY SIMPLE PLAN, AND IT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IT IS.
IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A HALF A FOOT, SIX INCHES DIFFERENCE.
I LIKE YOU SAY, WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE, YOU SEE THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.
THERE'S NOT A HOLE BETWEEN THE DECK AND THE DOCK.
I'M JUST THINKING AS THE OWNER, THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME DUE DILIGENCE THERE AS WELL TO SAY, BOY, THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS PERMITTED.
I NEED TO TALK TO THE CONTRACTOR.
>> ABSOLUTELY. NO, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU.
BUT I MEAN, THAT'S THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION.
THEY WERE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS BEING DONE BY CODE.
TRUTHFULLY, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WERE RESEARCHING AND ANALYZING IT TOO HEAVILY WHILE THEY WERE TRAVELING.
OF COURSE, A LOT OF IT IS AT THE FAULT OF THE APPLICANT, BUT IT'S MAINLY THE CONTRACTOR, WHERE THIS ISSUE AROSE AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX, REALLY.
I SAW THAT YOU'RE UNDER A ISSUE WITH THEM.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BLUM.
YOU SAID THAT; HOW'S THAT BETTER? THAT IN 2022 IS WHEN THE DECK PERMIT WAS GIVEN.
WHEN WAS THIS DISCOVERED TIMELINE-WISE? HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON?
>> I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE OF THE INSPECTION, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS SOMETIME IN LATE 2022 THAT THE INSPECTION TOOK PLACE WHERE THE ISSUE WAS NOTICED.
>> IT'S BEEN WELL OVER TWO YEARS, MAYBE TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS, THAT WE'RE NOW DEALING WITH THIS.
>> YES. CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE TYPICALLY HANDLE VIOLATIONS, WE TOOK A PROACTIVE APPROACH IN TRYING TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT.
WE HAD REACHED OUT, ASKED FOR SOME PERMIT REVISIONS.
WE RECEIVED SOME CORRESPONDENCE AND THINGS WERE MOVING ALONG.
THEY HAD ENGAGED SOME OTHER PROFESSIONALS.
THEY WERE WORKING TOWARDS THE PROCESS, AND THEN MOST RECENTLY, THEY HAD ENGAGED THE AGENT COTLER HARING'S OFFICE TO PROCESS THIS VARIANCE.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST TWO YEARS.
>> I SEE. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE OWNER KNOWS THERE'S A PROBLEM.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE GOING BACK TO THE CONTRACTOR AND SAYING, THERE'S A PROBLEM.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS MAYBE TIME TO GO BACK WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN.
>> MY NAME IS ROB WITH WELLS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION.
WE HAD NO INVOLVEMENT WITH THIS JOB IN WHAT [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THIS TESTIMONY, OR HAVE WE GOTTEN A PUBLIC COMMENT YET? HOLD ON.
>> HOLD ON. I GUESS IT WAS A DIRECT QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> HAS HE WORKED FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> SORRY. IT WAS JUST IN REFERENCE TO THE OWNER.
I JUST HEAR A FEW THINGS GOING ON.
THEY ENGAGED US A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, OR SO THEY'VE HAD OTHER ISSUES WITH THE HOUSE FROM THE PREVIOUS CONTRACTOR WITH SOME LEAKS, SOME VARIOUS ISSUES.
THEY ASKED FOR OUR INPUT ASSISTANCE ON THIS ISSUE AS WELL.
I CAN TELL YOU FROM DEALING WITH THEM OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF THAT THEY'RE VERY GOOD PEOPLE WHO I'M SURE THEY'RE NOT CONSTRUCTION.
I THINK THEIR CONFUSION CAME A LOT FROM THE FACT THAT YOU HAD A SEPARATE DOCK PERMIT, THEY HAD A SEPARATE POOL PERMIT.
THE DECK WAS REFERENCED ON THE POOL PERMIT, BUT NOT A SEPARATE DECK PERMIT PULLED PER SE.
ALL THE DRAWINGS THEY SAW LOOKED CORRECT.
WHEN THEY CAME OUT FOR THE INSPECTION ON THE DOCK, THAT'S WHEN THIS CAME TO LIGHT AND THAT'S WHEN THIS WHOLE PROCESS BEGAN.
[01:45:04]
WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, I THINK, IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE BEST SITUATION OUT OF WHAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH.THEY SPENT A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY.
THE CONTRACTOR PUT THEM IN A BAD POSITION, OBVIOUSLY.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE SITTING HERE TONIGHT.
BUT, I HOPE YOU GUYS DON'T HOLD THAT AGAINST THEM BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THE OWNERS HAD ANY REALLY THERE WAS NO BAD INTENT ON THEIR PART.
IT WAS LITERALLY JUST THEM TRUSTING IN THE PROFESSIONALS THEY HIRED, AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS A BAD CALL.
SORRY, I DON'T MEAN TO NOT TESTIMONY PER SE, BUT IT WAS RELATED TO THE OWNER AND WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THEM AND WE PROBABLY WILL BE ONE OF THE CONTRACTORS TRYING TO RECTIFY THIS RE-PULLING PERMITS AND WHATNOT, SO WE WILL BE INVOLVED. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
>> I DID NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT THERE WAS ANY BAD INTENT WITH THE OWNERS.
>> I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL FEEL OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT THEY'RE VERY AWARE OF HOW ALL THIS IMPACTS THE NEIGHBORS, THAT THEY'RE EVEN TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE REEF.
I APPRECIATE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, GUYS.
>> I'M SORRY. ALL MY QUESTIONS WERE ADDRESSED.
I GUESS BEFORE WE GET TO DELIBERATIONS.
>> I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION, TOO.
>> SORRY. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER KELSO.
>> FIRST STAFF. JUST SO I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I LIKE ALL THE CONDITIONS OF IT, BUT OF COURSE, I DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE WHERE THE DOCK IS.
IF I WERE TO WANT ALL YOUR CONDITIONS, BUT ALSO MAKE IT A CONDITION THAT THEY MOVE THAT PART OF THE DOCK THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THEN I'D HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
>> THEY WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE IF THEY REMOVED THOSE TRIANGLES AND MOVED A WATERWAY.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
>> ONE OF THE QUESTION ON THE CONDITION TO BE WITH THE NATIVE TREES AND HEDGES IN THE TRANSITIONAL BUFFER UPLAND.
DOES THAT APPLY TO THE AREA IN FRONT OF THE POOL ALSO? THAT'S THE ENTIRE AREA. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> AS WRITTEN, IT WOULD BE THE ENTIRE AREA.
>> ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> BEFORE YOU START YOUR DELIBERATION, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS.
YOU HAVE FINAL AUTHORITY TONIGHT, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU WILL MAKE A DECISION THAT DOESN'T GO ON TO THE COUNCIL FOR REVIEW.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT OTHER MITIGATION TYPE OF ACTIVITIES, BUT YOUR FOCUS IS WHETHER OR NOT THESE SEVEN CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.
THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA.
CRITERIA NUMBER 2 ALSO HAS TO BE MET.
I KNOW THE STAFF REPRESENTED THAT IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A CRITERIA THAT GOES TO THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LAND.
OR IS THERE ANY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH REGARD TO THE LAND THAT WOULD WARRANT A VARIANCE? THE OTHER THING I WILL SAY, HAVING BEEN IN A LOT OF COURT CASES ON VARIANCES, IS THAT THE COURTS DON'T LOOK AT A HIERARCHY OF CRITERIA.
THERE'S NO BEST CRITERIA, THERE'S NO WORST CRITERIA.
TO THE EXTENT THERE IS A CRITERIA THAT COURTS FOCUS ON, IT'S ACTUALLY NUMBER 3, WHICH IS THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND WHETHER, WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, YOU WOULD BE DEPRIVING THE APPLICANT OF A REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
ALMOST EVERY COURT OPINION ON VARIANCES COMES DOWN TO THAT PARTICULAR CRITERIA.
I HAVE TO WRITE A FINAL ORDER FOR YOU.
AS YOU GO THROUGH YOUR DELIBERATION, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD MAKE YOUR SPECIFIC FINDINGS ON THE SEVEN CRITERIA.
YOU CAN RELY ON THE STAFF'S TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE FOR THAT CRITERIA.
YOU CAN RELY ON THE APPLICANTS, EVIDENCE, AND TESTIMONY.
IN BOTH CASES, THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO YOU HAS TO BE RELEVANT.
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CRITERIA ARE RELEVANT.
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT THE OWNER'S INTENT WAS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, WHILE MAYBE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE OWNER DID NOT INTEND TO DO ANYTHING WRONG IS SIMPLY IN TERMS OF EVALUATING THE CRITERIA, NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT.
>> THANK YOU. DELIBERATION. LET'S START COMMISSIONER BLUM, THOUGHTS.
[01:50:04]
>> I HAVE NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT I SAID BEFORE.
>> WOULD YOU BE SUPPORTIVE OR NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE?
>> WELL, I DON'T HAVE A VOTE FOR ONE, BUT NO.
>> COMMISSIONER KELSO? I DON'T FEEL THEY'VE MET ALL SEVEN CRITERIA SIDE I DON'T KNOW.
>> I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE AESTHETICS OF IT, AND I UNDERSTAND WANTING TO SQUARE THAT OFF TO MATCH THE DOCK.
BUT WITH LANDSCAPING, I THINK, FROM THE HOUSE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THAT AREA.
YOU CAN OBSCURE THAT WITH THE LANDSCAPING.
TO MAKE IT SHOW THAT FROM LOOKING OUT FROM THE BACK DECK TOWARDS THE WATER, IT'LL LOOK LIKE IT'S RECTANGULAR AND STILL MATCHES THE DECORATION OF THE HOUSE, THE ANGLE OF THE HOUSE.
YOU CAN ALSO MAKE IT SO THAT WHEN YOU'RE A DOCK, IT MATCHES THE PERIMETER OF THE DOCK.
MY ONE CONCERN DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WHAT THE STAFF WAS SAYING, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW WIDE THE DOCK IS.
AS YOU TAKE AWAY SOME OF THAT AREA, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE DOCK FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE ON IT.
THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS IN DELIBERATING ON IT.
>> WOULD YOU BE SUPPORTIVE OR NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THAT?
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT BIG AN AREA.
I THINK I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE.
>> WELL, BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD ON THE SEVERAL CRITERIA, OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVEN'T MET THEM, AND I'M NOT WILLING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS UNLESS THE APPLICANT WANTS TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE STANDARDS THAT THE STAFF HAS PUT OUT AT THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GUISINGER.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THE APPLICANT MET THE ORIGINAL CRITERIA FOR THE SEVEN CRITERIA NOR THE PERMIT FOR THE DOCKS, SO THEREFORE, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE VARIANCE.
>> I'LL STAY WITH WHAT I SAID BEFORE AND JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE.
THEY HAVEN'T MET THE CRITERIA.
THEY'RE NOT EVEN HALFWAY THERE.
IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MR. BAYARD, THE TOWN ATTORNEY.
REITERATING THAT THE SECOND CRITERIA DOES ACTUALLY APPLY.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT THAT ALL SEVEN CRITERIA HAVE NOT BEEN MET, SO I WOULD NOT SUPPORT IT.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KEENAN.
>> THE SEVEN CRITERIA HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
A VARIANCE IS NOT A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM BROUGHT ON BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
NOW, ADMITTEDLY, THIS PROPERTY OWNER WAS DID BRING ON THE PROBLEM; IT WAS THE CONTRACTOR.
BUT IT IS IN ESSENCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, SO IT IS A PROBLEM BROUGHT ON THAT WAY.
VARIANCE IS NOT THE SOLUTION, SO I WOULD NOT SUPPORT IT.
>> THANK YOU. CAN I GET A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST?
>> I LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST.
>> CAN I ENHANCE YOUR MOTION? I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF AND THE STAFF REPORT AND INCORPORATE THAT AS OUR FINDINGS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT.
>> SECOND, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
>> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. DENIED.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.
[STAFF UPDATE]
TOWN COUNCIL ACTIONS ON COMMISSION ITEMS.
>> A MINUTE WHILE I PULL THAT UP, SORRY.
[01:55:08]
SORRY ABOUT THAT.AT THE FEBRUARY 18TH COUNCIL MEETING, THE WENDY SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
ON THE MARCH 4TH MEETING, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICT SIGNAGE FOR THE MSD, THE MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT FOR ABACOA, WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
THAT WILL BE ON AGAIN NEXT MONTH FOR THE FINAL HEARING.
THEN, THE BIO-VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION, FUTURE LAND USE, AND REZONING AMENDMENT WERE ALL PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE ADJOURN, I WANT TO HAVE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THE CONTRIBUTION OF MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, MR. RICHARD DUNNING.
THIS WILL BE HIS LAST MEETING TONIGHT AS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER.
>> CLAPPING BECAUSE I'M LEAVING. [LAUGHTER]
>> WE CERTAINLY WISH YOU ALL THE BEST, RICHARD, AND WE'RE VERY SAD THAT YOU'LL BE LEAVING US.
>> I APPRECIATE IT, AND WHAT A WAY TO SIGN OFF.
YOU AND YOURSELF VERY WELL, AND EVEN WITH A SMACKDOWN FROM MR. BAYARD THERE, IT WAS PRETTY GOOD.
I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY HEARTFELT GRATITUDE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE ON THE TOWNS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR ALMOST THREE YEARS.
I'VE ONLY MISSED TWO MEETINGS.
I THINK ONE TIME BECAUSE I WAS OUT OF TOWN AND THE OTHER TIME WAS VALENTINE'S DAY, AND I DON'T LIKE TO MESS UP ON THAT ONE, SO I HAVE TO THAT ONE [LAUGHTER] WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR APPOINTING ME TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, KEVIN KERN, OUR CHAIRMAN FOR NOMINATING ME AS A VICE CHAIRMAN AND MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR SUPPORT.
IT HAS BEEN ENRICHING EXPERIENCE FILLED WITH CHALLENGES AND TRIUMPHS THAT HAVE SHAPED ME BOTH PROFESSIONALLY AND PERSONALLY.
I AM GRATEFUL FOR THE SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE I'VE GAINED FROM NAVIGATING COMPLEX ZONING REGULATIONS TO ENGAGING WITH YOUR COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS BEING THERE AND OFFERING YOUR ASSISTANCE WHENEVER I NEED IT.
THANK YOU, JOHN. THANK YOU, GARRETT.
THANK YOU, VANESSA. EVEN FOR MR. BAYARD, TOO.
>> DOES HE HAVE YOU?[LAUGHTER]
>> ANYWAY, BUT I KNOW THAT YOU'LL BE GLAD YOU WON'T HAVE THOSE SILLY QUESTIONS COMING FROM ME ABOUT THE SIGNS NOT BEING UP OR THIS OR THAT AND EVERYTHING SO YOU HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO THAT NOW.
BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT AND CAMARADERIE I'VE SHARED WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AS WELL.
I THINK WE WORK VERY WELL AS A TEAM.
YOU GUYS AMAZE ME WITH THE AMOUNT OF INSIDE AND COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF EVERY MATTER BROUGHT UP BEFORE DISCUSSION.
GOING FORWARD, ON A PERSONAL NOTE, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, I'M A WIDOWER, AND I FOUND SOMEBODY VERY SPECIAL IN MY LIFE, AND I WANT TO BUILD A LIFE TOGETHER, AND WE WANT TO DO A LOT OF TRAVELING, BUT I WILL STILL BE IN THE AREA.
WE'LL SEND YOU SOME POSTCARDS.
I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT WILL CONTINUE TO THRIVE AND GROW, AND I WISH YOU ALL THE BEST FUTURE AND YOUR FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR FRIENDSHIP AND SUPPORT.
TAKE CARE AND GOD BLESS. [APPLAUSE]
>> THANK YOU, RICHARD. WE CAN ADJOURN THE MEETING.
>> YOU GUYS ARE AWESOME.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.