[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:12]
CALL THE CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING FOR AUGUST
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
24, 2023 TO ORDER.FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS THE APPROVAL OF OUR MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING WHICH WAS JULY 27, 2024.
>> MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEITH HADDEN: I HAVE A MOTION.
>> SECOND. >>KEITH HADDEN: MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
THE SECOND ITEM IS PUBLIC COMMENT.
I AM GOING TO OPEN IT. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK CAN SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT TO. I DON'T SEE ANY PUBLIC.
[1. Public Hearing to consider Application BOA 0623-0015; Variance to Section 3-33A.III.5.i of the County Land Development Code. CONTINUED from July 21, 2023.]
SO I WILL CLOSE IT. NOW THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING.AND I WILL OPEN THAT. AND A CONTINUATION FROM ONE FROM OUR LAST MEETING. SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. MIKE BROWN. .
>>MIKE BROWN: MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD, AGAIN THERE ARE IS A CONTINUATION, BOA, BOA 0623-0015, CONTINUED FROM YOUR LAST BOARD MEETING FROM THE 27TH OF JULY.
JUST REAL BRIEFLY, THE APPLICANT IS BLACK CREEK LLP.
THE AGENT ENGLAND, THIMS & MILLER ENGLAND, THIMS & MILLER.
PETER MOSS REPRESENTING THEM. 8214 ALDERMAN ROAD IN THE BRANAN FIELD PUD IN THE MASTER PLAN VILLAGE JOAN.
AND THE REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 45 FEET TO 50 FEET. I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU WANT ME -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PRESENTATION OR NOT THAT WAS THE SAME THING AS LAST MONTH.
>>KEITH HADDEN: THE SAME THING AS LAST MONTH AND TOM WASN'T HERE LAST MONTH. TOM I READ THROUGH IT.
. >>KEITH HADDEN: I THINK WE ARE OKAY. SEEING MR. PETER MOSS STANDIG THERE AND I AM ASSUMING THAT YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE OWNER.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS NOW FOR THE RECORD.
>> PETER MA, ENGLAND, THIMS & MILLER.
OLD AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. >>KEITH HADDEN: EVERYTHING BURR TO SAY IS THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
>> YES, SIR. I WATCHED THE VIDEO FROM LAST MONTH WHEN RAY WAS HERE SPEAKING.
I BELIEVE WE LEFT OFF AT -- YOU HAD REQUESTED US GOING BACK TO THE DEVELOPER ARCHITECT TO SEE IF WE CAN REDUCE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, MAXIMUM HEIGHT RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY STANDS AT ABOUT 56 FEET.
AND THE WAY THAT THE MAX HEIGHT FOR CLAY COUNTY BUILDING HEIGHT MEASURES THE EAVES AND THE TOPS OF YOUR ROOFLINE.
SO I SPOKE WITH THE DEVELOPER YESTERDAY OR TWO DAYS AGO.
IT IS A BLEND, SORRY. THEY ARE FOLLOWING REDUCE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BY FOUR FEET. THAT STILL GETS YOU YOUR MEAN BUILDING HEIGHT IS STILL GOING TO BE OVER THE -- OVER THE HEIGHT OF 45 FEET. SO DEVELOPER WISHES -- YOU KNOW, WE COME TO A FINALE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER SO HE KNOWS HOW TO
MOVE FORWARD. >>KEITH HADDEN: MIKE.
WHAT IS OUR -- WHAT IS OUR HEIGHT LIMITATION RIGHT NOW?
>>MIKE BROWN: 45 FEET. >>KEITH HADDEN: 45.
>>MIKE BROWN: YEAH. >>KEITH HADDEN: AND, PETER, THE -- THE REVISED PLAN. WHAT WOULD THE EAVE HEIGHT AND
THE TOP HEIGHT BE. >> SO CURRENTLY RAY HAD MENTIONED LAST MONTH THAT THE TOP RIGHT NOW IS 56 FEET.
AND THE EAVES AT 41. SO WHEN YOU AVERAGE THAT OUT, THAT IS 48.5. WE ARE PROPOSING TO DROP THE TOP OF THE ROOF TO 52 EAVES, REMAINING THE SAME AT 41.
SO THAT GETS YOU A LITTLE BIT OVER 46 AND A HALF AND SOME
CHANGE. >>KEITH HADDEN: SO YOU ARE ASKING TO RAISE IT FROM HA 45 TO 46 AND A HALF?
BASICALLY. >> 47, IF WE CAN GET SOME
CUSHION. >>KEITH HADDEN: YEAH.
>> QUESTION MAYBE FOR MIKE. THAT IS HOW THE HEIGHT IS MEASURED. IT IS AN AVERAGE?
>> FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >>MIKE BROWN: THAT IS HOW IT IS
DEFINED, YES. >>THE REASON IT CAME UP LAST
[00:05:01]
MONTH BECAUSE THE PITCH THEY HAD OFTEN THE ROOF WAS SUCH IF THEY COULD LOWER THAT SOME, FOR EVERY TWO FEET YOU LOWER YOU TAKE OUT ONE FOOT IN AVERAGE SO. MR. BUILDER, WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE? WHAT DO YOU THINK.>> WELL, FIRST, I AM BOTHERED BY THE FACT YOU GUYS SUBMITTED PLAN THAT WERE OUT OF CODE AND EXPECT US TO JUST EAT IT.
AND FOR HIM TO ALMOST THREATEN WITH THE STATEMENT YOU MADE THAT, YOU KNOW, HE IS ONLY WILLING TO DO THAT MUCH, THAT BOTHERS ME. OKAY.
I KNOW THE COUNTY NEVER GIVES ME AN INCH WHEN I NEED AN INCH.
SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE A QUESTION.
NOW YOU ARE LOOKING FOR TWO FEET INSTEAD OF SIX FEET IS WHAT THEY ARE ASKING LAST MONTH, I BELIEVE, LAST MONTH.
>> THERE WERE PLAN IN THERE? I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANYTHING
OTHER -- >> A SITE PLAN BUT NO ELEVATION
PLAN TO LOOK AND COMMENT ON. >> NONE OF THIS PACKAGE -- I WAS THINKING LAST MONTH IN THE PACKAGE, THEY HAD SOME -- SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS WERE THREE STORY AND SOME WERE FOUR.
IT WAS LIKE TWO AND TWO. AND THE PACKAGE WE GOT -- AND TIS ONE. BUT LAST MONTH, THEY SHOWED -- IT JUST HAPPENED TO THE ONES -- THAT IS FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL THERE. THE ONES ALONG HERE AND THE ONES ALONG HERE ARE THE TALLEST. AND THE SHORTEST ONES IN THE
>> YES, MIDDLEBURGH HIGH. BUT THEY WERE SHOWING THAT
I THOUGHT THEY WERE IN THE PACKAGE.
SO THERE WAS THE BUILDING AND THE ROOF AND I AM NOT A BUILDER.
I AM NOT AN ARCHITECT. CAN WE GO WITH A FLAT ROOF OR WHAT WHATEVER.
>> WE HAD SUGGESTED MAYBE LOPPING OFF THE TOP.
IF YOU HAVE A FLAT ROOF, WOULDN'T LOOK THAT MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THE STREET, BUT WILL GIVE US WHAT WE WERE
>> OUR CONCERN COMES, WE GIVE YOU TWO FOOT.
ANOTHER GUY COMES ALONG AND WANTS TWO MORE FEET AND WITHIN A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW WE ARE AT 60 FEET TALL, WHICH IS NOT THE PLAN. SO WE ARE CAUTIOUS OF WHAT WE
GIVE IN TO. >> I THINK -- AND AN OPTION -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS MENTIONED BUT TO HAVE THE TALL BUILDINGS
IN THE BACK VERSUS THE FRONT. >> WE BROUGHT THAT UP.
>> WAS THAT MENTIONED TO THE OWNER.
>> I BELIEVE THE WAY THAT THE SITE PLAN -- THAT'S -- I DID MENTION IT TO HIM, BUT THAT WASN'T -- THAT WASN'T AN OPTION FOR THEM TO MOVE IT FURTHER BACK.
>> IT IS ALWAYS AN OPTION. LOOKS LIKE A BIG PIECE OF
PROPERTY. >> A LOT OF WETLAND.
>> WELL, A LOT OF WETLAND. THE ONES ALONG THE FRONT FROM AN L-SHAPED TO THEM. THE OTHERS STILL STRAIGHT BUILDINGS. THAT COULD HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE REASON THEY WERE RELUCTANT TO, YOU KNOW, DO A
FLIP-FLOP. >> I GUARANTEE YOU IF WE DENIED IT, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO WALK AWAY FROM THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. THEY WILL REDESIGN AND DO
SOMETHING. >> I AM NOT MUCH FOR BEING HELD
I AM JUST SAYING. I AM SURPRISED THAT THEY.
>> I APPRECIATE PETER BEING HERE BUT I WOULD THINK THE DEVELOPER-OWNER WOULD BE HERE TO --
>> WAS IT -- WAS IT HIM LAST WEEK, LAST MONTH?
>> NO, DIFFERENT. >> YOUR GUY.
I KNOW THE ARCHITECT IS NOT LOCAL.
I DON'T THINK THE OWNER IS LOCAL EITHER.
>> THEY ARE NOT. >> YOU HAPPEN TO BE THE CLOSEST
GUY TO THE MEETING. >> YES, SIR.
>> I GET THAT SOMETIMES. WE WILL HAVE KEITH GO.
HE IS THERE IN CLAY COUNTY. >> THAT WOULDN'T BE WRONG.
>> I MEAN -- AND I DON'T KNOW WHY.
IT COULD THREE-STORY UNITS UP FRONT.
WELL, WE WANT FOUR STORY AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.
>> IT IS ALL ABOUT DENSITY WHEN WE QUESTIONED THEM LAST MONTH.
I GET IT. THEY WANT TO GET AS MANY
APARTMENTS AS POSSIBLE. >> THE DENSITY IS BASED ON THE TOTAL ACREAGE. A LOT OF IT IS WETLAND.
>> ALSO A MINIMUM AND A MAXIMUM. >> CORRECT.
A MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM. >> THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM
>> THE UNITS. PAUSE OF THE CORRIDOR, THE
[00:10:04]
COUNTY REQUIRES THEM TO HAVE -- DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE NUMBER WAS? THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE 400 MINIMUM, 500 MAXIMUM AND THEY ARE AT 450 OR SOMETHING.>> IS THERE ANYTHING IN THAT THAT -- WITH 8, IF WE -- IF YOU MADE US LOP OFF THAT FOURTH FLOOR, NOW WE ARE GOING TO BE
>> WHICH IS WHY WE SAID REFUSE THE ROOF, BECAUSE SO MUCH WASTED
SPACE UP THERE. >> WE DID DISCUSS -- A LONG DISCUSSION. IF YOU TOP OFF THE FOURTH FLOOR OF THE BUILDINGS UP FRONT, THEN THEY ARE BELOW THE MINIMUM.
>> LOOKS TO BE A 10, 12 PITCH. LOOKS LIKE QUITE A TALL ROOF.
>> WE SAID WHAT IF YOU PUT THE BUILDINGS ON THE BACK.
YOU KNOW, FOUR -- >> DON'T STAND UP AS TALL.
NOT AS OBVIOUS. >> IT IS PROBABLY FIRST-FLOOR PLAN THAT THEY HAVE ELSEWHERE A AND THE REASON THEY WANT -- AND JUST THE HEIGHT THING, YOU KNOW.
>> USED TO BUILD FIVE-STORY HOMES.
THEY DON'T ALLOW THOSE EITHER ANYMORE.
THINGS CHANGE. >> THINGS CHANGE.
>> WHATEVER THEY WANT, I AM SURE THEY WANT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW ANY REASON WHY THAT COULD BE FOUR-STORY UNITS COULDN'T BE IN THE BACK. MAYBE IT IS NOT AN L-SHAPED, BUT YOU CAN MAKE A FOUR STORY NOT L-SHAPED AND A THREE-STORY L
OR GO WITH A -- WITH AN EVEN LESSER PITCHED ROOF.
IF THEY WON'T HAVE A PITCHED ROOF, THEY REDUCE IT SON.
OKAY. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE ROOF -- THE ROOF PITCH IS NOW? ANYTHING -- THAT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THE SECTION. ARE WE LOOKING AT A -- ONE TO FOUR. ONE TO THREE? I MEAN, DID THEY GO AS MINIMAL THAT THEY CAN AND STILL USE SHINGLES OR NOT? THAT KIND OF THING.
>> LAST MONTH, I WAS THINKING, MIKE.
YOU WOULD BLOW THAT UP AND PUT IT ON THE SCREEN AND, TOM, WHAT
THE HEIGHT IS. >> YOU NOTICE THE ROOF SECTION
IS GREATER THAN THE STORIES. >> YEAH, WE HAD --
>> I WROTE IT DOWN BECAUSE I BARELY SEE IT EITHER.
THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING LAST MONTH.
BASICALLY 5637 AND THE EAVE AT 41.
>> SO BASICALLY REDUCING. >>, ETC. LET'S TAKE 5610 MI EUS.
>> 41 IS THE EAVE. >> 5610 MINUS 41.
>> IS 15. >> MAKES 48 AND A HALF THE
MIDDLE. >> I AM TRYING TO SEE WHAT THE
3I67 IS. >> I DON'T THINK THEY GAVE IT TO
US ON THERE. >> WE DON'T KNOW THE WIDTH OF
THE THING. >> I LOVE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
>> DON'T PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. >> REMEMBER, YOU ARE ON TV.
>> I AM ON TV. HELLO, MR. ARCHITECT.
>> NONE OF THESE. JUST ONE FROM CLOUD DESIGN.
>> THESE ARE ELEVATION DRAWINGS. NOT PLATS.
>> WE KNOW HOW HIGH IT IS GOING BUT WE DON'T KNOW OVER WHAT
DISTANCE. >> IT IS REALLY NOT OUR JOB TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. WE ASKED FOR A VIABLE SOLUTION
BUT HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE. >> IT IS BETTER BUT NOT VERY
VIABLE. >> IT IS NOT WHAT WE ASKED FOR.
>> IT DEFINITELY LOOKS MORE THAN ONE TO FOUR.
BUT I CAN'T TELL. CUT DOWN ONE TO FOUR OR CUT DOWN TO ONE TO THREE? CU DOWN TO ONE TO THREE, IT WOULD BE ABOUT -- IF WHAT THEY PROPOSED GIVES YOU A ONE TO FOUR SLOPE. A ONE TO THREE, WHICH STILL ALLOWS SHINGLES WOULD BECOME CLOSE TO MEETING THE CRITERIA.
>> PETER, IF WE DENY THIS, THEY CANNOT COME BACK BEFORE US FOR A YEAR. THAT IS THE REASON LAST MONTH WE SAID WHAT ABOUT A CONTINUANCE GO BACK TO THE OWNER.
[00:15:04]
SEE IF YOU CAN COME BACK WITH SOMETHING -- WE UNDERSTAND -- WE ARE TRYING TO HELP THEM GET TO WHAT THEY NEED, BUT, YOU KNOW -- AND UNFORTUNATELY, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS IN THERE THAT IS BEING BUILT. BY THIS NEW CRITERIA.SO WE HATE -- THE FIRST GUY IN THE GATE GO AHEAD AND LET HIM GO
TALLER THAN IS ALLOWED. >> OR YOU CAN CONDITION IT LIKE YOU ARE SAYING BEFORE. THAT THEY CAN DO IT IN THE BACK AND AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. I MEAN, I --
>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AS MUCH TROUBLE IS THE HEIGHT ISSUE WAS -- IF THE HIGHER UNITS WERE IN THE BACK.
I THINK SOME OF IT IS BECAUSE OF THEY ARE RIGHT THERE ON THE STREET. RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE HIGH SCH SCHOOL.
>> I WOULD LIKE SEE, YOU KNOW, MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE --.THE SECTION -- A SECTION THROUGH.
SO WE KNOW IS IT -- YOU KNOW, COULD IT BE CUT DOWN MORE? MAYBE BRING THE ARCHITECT AND -- AND SOMEBODY -- LET US -- GIVE US THE SECTION AND LET US SEE THAT.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I DON'T KNOW -- IF WE VOTE, IF IT IS GOING TO DO WELL. BUT IF WE HAD MORE INFORMATION AND -- I DON'T KNOW. IF -- IF THAT IS ALREADY AS LOW AS IT CAN GO. I DON'T LIKE NECESSARILY THE
IDEA OF A FLAT ROOF. >> I DON'T.
BUT I AM NOT -- >> THEY ARE NOT THE NICEST ALWAYS. BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT IT COULDN'T GO DOWN A LITTLE MORE AND STILL WORK.
>> WELL, I THINK IF YOU WANT TO CONDITION TO ALLOW THE FOUR STORY AND THE 52 FEET ROOF LINE TO BE BUILT IN THE BACK.
CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, WE -- WE CAN -- THAT IS MORE -- A LOT
BETTER THAN -- THEN DENY. >> WELL, WE COULD -- WE COULD RECOMMEND A CONTINUANCE FOR A MONTH -- JUST A MONTH.
WE ARE MEETING NEXT MONTH ANYWAY, AND LET THE OWNER MAKE -- OKAY, DO YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR HEELS IN THE SAND ON THIS.
AND SAY, WE HAVE LOWERED IT FOUR FEET.
THAT IS ALL WE ARE GOING TO DO. EITHER APPROVE IT OR DENY IT.
OR COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT ROOF PITCH.
OR COME BACK AND SAY, WE ARE GOING TO GO WITH -- WE ARE GOING TO GO WITH THE HIGHER, AND PUT IT IN THE BACK.
I THINK -- I THINK HAVING THE TALLER BUILDINGS IN THE BACK WILL HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF PASSING.
ITHINK OBVIOUSLY LOWERING IT SOME MORE WILL HAVE A CHANCE OF PASSING. I DON'T THINK RIGHT NOW, WITH WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED AND ASKED YOU TO BRING TO US, I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET THREE VOTES OUT OF THE FOUR OF US TO SAY, YEP, WE ARE GOOD WITH IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IF -- IF THE OWNER CALLED US UP ON THE PHONE AND SAID I NEED A VOTE TONIGHT, WE WILL VOTE.
I DON'T THINK HE IS GOING TO LIKE THE RESULT.
AND HE IS GOING -- HE WILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR A YEAR TO, YOU KNOW, COME BACK TO US. HE CAN CHANGE THE PLANS AND SUBMIT IT TO STAFF. HAND THIS WILL BE FINE TOO.
>> SUBMIT SOMETHING THAT MEETS CODE AND DON'T COME TO US --
>> YEAH, EXACTLY. AND I GUARANTEE YOU AIN'T EVER GOING TO FIND BOARD THAT WILL WORK WITH YOU MORE THAN WE ARE.
>> YES, SIR. >> KNOWING DOWN WHAT IS COMING DOWN THE PIKE, I WOULD SAY STRIKE WHILE YOU GOT A CHANCE.
>> RESPECTFULLY, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER TONIGHT.
SO, I MEAN, YES, NO, THAT -- >>I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT. SOMETIMES YOU ARE JUST THE MESSENGER. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> AND CONTINUING OR NOT IS YOUR CHOICE, NOT OURS.
WE THREW THAT OUT AS AN OPTION. IF IT IS NO FROM YOU, THEN WE WILL VOTE AND IT WILL BE LIKELY NO FROM US.
>> RESPECTFULLY, WE ARE LOOKING FOR A VOTE.
TONIGHT. >>KEITH HADDEN: WE UNDERSTAND THAT. WE CERTAINLY DO.
OKAY. AND SEEING NOBODY ELSE HERE FROM THE CLAY COUNTY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR WHATEVER.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF PETER? OR STAFF OR AMONGST OURSELVES OR ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR DENIAL.
>> I WILL SECOND. >>KEITH HADDEN: A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR DENIAL OF.BOA 0623 0623-0015. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
BUT IT IS DENIED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[00:20:02]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>KEITH HADDEN: THANK YOU, SIR.
I WILL NOW OPEN THE NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT HEARING.
SEEING NOTHING. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC UNLESS ONE OF OUR ILLUSTRIOUS COUNTY ATTORNEYS WANT TO COME UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT SOMETHING. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ALREADY FOR
NEXT MONTH. >> WE HAVE TWO ITEMS.
>> ASSUMING THERE IS AN US NEXT MONTH.
YOU WILL BE. >> THERE WILL BE AN US NEXT MONTH. [LAUGHTER] OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.