Architectural Review Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board Meeting for Wednesday, 03/18/2026. It's a very small dais tonight, but we've got the right people here. So if you would please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. First up is approval of minutes from the February meeting.

I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll second it.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nope. All right. Excellent. Additions, deletions or reordering of the agenda?

MS. No, sir. MR.

Okay. And then swearing in of speakers.

MS. Okay. Before we do that, the interested party has requested additional time as is permitted under our rules. And she has requested an additional ten minutes. So you'll need to take a vote on that.

Okay. And so it's ten?

:Additional minutes over and above the fifteen that is allotted. If you grant that request, then the applicant would also be entitled to an additional ten minutes.

Okay. So does somebody just make a motion or do I we discuss or mean I'm okay with it. I'll make a motion to approve that request.

Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

And now I'll swear on the speakers. If you intend to be heard on this item, would you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Ex parte disclosures, please.

I spoke to the applicant or the applicant's representative yesterday.

And what was the substance?

Regarding what they're trying to achieve here as far as the project goes.

Okay. And notwithstanding that, can you be fair and impartial?

Be fair and impartial.

Thank you.

JAMES Thank you. JAMES DAY:

I also had a Zoom meeting with the applicant. We just went over the whole project. And notwithstanding, I can be fair and impartial.

JAMES Okay.

I also met with applicant, and we discussed the history of the project. And I also spoke with staff, and notwithstanding, I can be fair and impartial. Thank you.

I spoke with staff, and notwithstanding, I can be fair and impartial. Thank you. Okay.

Good evening. Kelly Ferriolo, Planning and Zoning. Before you tonight is Petition twenty twenty dash zero zero zero one dash VAR, a variance request to reduce the width of a landscape buffer on the east property lines within Lots 12 To 14 of Track B Of Blue Cypress to accommodate swimming pools, which staff would like to enter all files into the record. The owner is TNR Blue Cypress four LLC, and the agent is Zach Sesera with Cutler and Herring, who will be presenting first, and then staff presentation will follow.

Well, thank you, members of the board. For the record, Saxe Sierra with Kotler and Hearing and Jupiter. I am a planner in our office. And just for the record, we do have Ms. Nicole Plunkett, the president of Kotler and hearing in attendance tonight, and the owner, Mr.

Rob Gray of TNR Development. So of course, I am here on behalf of the owner and applicant to present to you a variance for the Blue Cypress subdivision. And specifically, the request is to reduce a portion of the platted 15 foot landscape buffer easement for Lots 1213, and 14 within Track B of the Blue Cypress subdivision. Now I will get into further detail shortly here. But if approved tonight, this will allow these three lots, which are very small lots, the capability of constructing a pool, which is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood.

Every other home in the Blue Cypress subdivision has a pool, so this would just afford these three lots the opportunity to do that. Now the Blue Cypress subdivision is located within the Palm Beach Polo and Country Club. You can see where the Blue Cypress Subdivision is outlined in red there on your screen. Now specifically tonight, we're talking about Track B, which is the 14 lots in question. And I'll zoom into this on my next slide, but I did think it was important to include the location of Track G1, which is just north of us.

That is currently vacant, and I will make reference to that a few times during my presentation here. However, Track B consists of 4.83 acres and was subdivided into 14 lots in 2022. Now take a look at your screen here. You can see all 14 lots and the subject lots for tonight's variance, Lots 1213 And 14. And the landscape buffer that we are talking about sits along the east property line of these lots here.

You can see that outlined in green on your screen. I'd like to give you a little bit of background on how this project was approved and how we are here today in front of you. So in the year 2000, this is when the Blue Cypress project was approved in its entirety, the full 28 acres, and in the same year was when the 15 foot landscape buffer easement was included on the site plan and plat. So in other words, this is when the 15 foot landscape buffer easement was born. Later modified in that same year, the project originally approved for 10 lots was modified to 67 single family lots.

Now this does not include Track B or Track G 1. That's everything outside of it. In 2022, the original developer sold to the previous owner, and the previous owner subdivided Track B in 2022 for 14 lots. Following that, two years later, that's when Rob Gray with TNR Development purchased the property. So since Rob has purchased the property, he began applying for building permits to construct 5,000 square foot single family homes on Track B, which is an expected home and floor plan in this area here.

So my first bullet point here is important to note that this follows the approval and issuance of the master building permit for the home. So after approval of the master building permit, a subcontractor came in for a sub permit for the pool. That was ultimately denied due to the encroachment that we're asking for tonight because an encroach within that landscape buffer easement. Rob was curious on how to address this issue, and he was advised by his legal counsel, his trusted legal counsel, that this could be handled at the HOA level. So that's ultimately what Rob did, was he obtained an encroachment agreement between the HOA and the owner and submitted that as part of the permit.

Of course, as you all know, that did not work either. And this has to be handled through a village process, which the only process to go through at this point, since those buildings for Lots 14 And 1312 was not vertical at this time, but those buildings were already vertical. So the only thing that we could do at this point was go through with a variance. Now you can see our proposal here, what we're asking for tonight. You see the 15 foot existing landscape buffer easement in yellow on your screen.

And you see where we're going to encroach, where we're proposing to encroach in red. So not only are we just mitigating the effects of the encroachment, but we're actually adding on to the landscape buffer area that you can see in green there. So this will result in nine sixty one square feet of increased landscape buffer area compared to what's out there today. We're actually increasing the buffer. We're increasing the area of the buffer.

And the most important piece throughout this entire presentation will be that there's zero reduction in landscape quantity. So although that the landscape buffer easement is 15 feet wide, it doesn't mean that all of the plantings within that buffer stretch 15 feet wide. So we're still maintaining the Type B landscape buffer requirements, which is a shade tree every 30 feet, a hedgerow, and a fence. We're still maintaining that with additional ground cover. So here's a more detailed representation of what we're exactly proposing.

And this shows you that we are only proposing this to the minimal extent possible for this pool. So you can see in yellow across the pool, that line is the existing 15 foot landscape buffer. We will encroach within that by five feet. So you can see we're maintaining a 10 foot pool setback, which is actually the code requirement. So we're not asking for an encroachment to the setback, we're asking for an encroachment into the landscape And then on the sides there, you can see that there's additional landscape buffer area that we're adding.

Now this will be SAD. It's not about the actual landscape that will go in there. That just ensures that there's no development that can occur in those additional areas. Now, before I move on to the variance criteria, it's incumbent upon us to provide you the necessary information to make a finding on all of the criteria items listed. And there are seven criteria items in your code.

So I will very briefly go through all of our responses to that, but of course, you do have that as a part of our project narrative, and staff did their own analysis of these seven criteria items, which is part of the staff report. So criteria number one, special circumstances that exist that are peculiar to the land or structure and not applicable to other lands or structures. Now landscape buffers such as this and we're not talking about a landscape buffer in an individual lot, we're talking about for the entire tract those typically are separate tracts. So that would be platted as a separate tract, and then the individual lots would start after that. There would not be an overlap.

So, of course, this was subdivided in 2022 prior to Rob purchasing the property. I'm not sure how that process went. The subdivision standards were certainly different back then, even though it was only a few years ago. But we think there's opportunity to there was opportunity, at least, to redesign the site a little bit so that this wouldn't have happened in the future. And I'll show you that graphically in a second.

So a follow-up criteria from one is two. Special circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Now of course, this overlap was not a result of the actions of the applicant. And I know Rob, he'd be the first one to tell you that he certainly does not want to be going through this process. He wished this could have been handled way back in the beginning. But that's just the reality of the situation of where we're at now. And I think the request asking for makes sense. And I'll show you the level of impact, or lack thereof, that we have on surrounding properties later on as we get through the criteria. But as I mentioned, criteria two, we think this could have been designed a little more efficiently. Now what do I mean by that exactly?

So when you look at this graphic, you see lots twelve, thirteen and fourteen. These lots are significantly smaller than all the other lots. Now when you look across the street, the three lots directly across the street are significantly larger. They're amongst the largest lots in the entire subdivision. So when this was subdivided back in 'twenty two, they could have done a separate landscape buffer tract 15 feet from the east property line. And it looks like there was opportunity to shift that road west slightly. Now that would give our lots more depth, and it would shrink the lots to the west slightly. But still, they would be larger than lots twelve, thirteen and fourteen. So I think that could have been a solution back then. But of course, I'm just saying that's the special circumstance that we're under today.

Now in the staff report for this specific criteria item, staff did mention that our lots are about 8,200 square feet, give or take. Now I did an analysis of all the lots in Blue Cypress, which is about 87 to 90 lots. There's only seven lots. You can see all of them on your screen here, aside from the one large lot. There's only seven lots that are smaller than 8,200 square feet. All of them have pools. Every single lot in Blue Cypress has a pool. However, these lots were afforded the ability to have an administrative variance to reduce the setback for the pool. I mean, look at the screen here. You can see the significantly reduced setback by that pool.

And they're not encumbered by this landscape buffer that we have, which we are not eliminating, by the way. We're just simply encroaching and mitigating for it. So criteria number three, granting of this variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege. Of course, no special privileges being granted with this. We're simply asking for consistency with the rest of the neighborhood.

I think it's expected for these homes in this market to have a pool. We're simply asking for this, if it's granted, to be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. And to the contrary, denial of the variance would actually promote a consequence to these three lots because they'd be the only three lots without a pool. Now, you know, when you think about that, I wouldn't really want to be the outlier in this neighborhood when there's already 90 homes with a pool, and that's just my personal opinion. Criteria Criteria number four, literal interpretation of the code would deprive these three lots rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district.

I'm sure you all already know what I'm about to say. If we are required to maintain the 15 feet, there can't be a pool for these three lots, and approval will just grant consistency. Criteria number five, the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land. And you saw in our graphic earlier that this is the minimum possible. The pools that we're proposing are a little smaller than the standard pool that we would typically build in this neighborhood.

And the encroachment is only within the pool area. We're not asking for anything more, and we're actually adding on to the landscape buffer in addition to that. So it's absolutely the most minimum. Criteria number six and there's seven total, so I have two left. Granting of the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Now, every single comprehensive plan in the entire state promotes some type of buffering between properties. And it's important to note that we're not requesting to eliminate this buffer. We understand that a buffer is very important, and we're not eliminating any plantings either. The landscape species there that are in the landscape buffer will be maintained in its entirety as they were approved. We're simply asking to encroach within it for consistency.

That's really all it is. And criteria number seven, the variance will not be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare. Certainly acknowledge the letter as part of the packet that we received on March 13, I believe, by the neighbor's legal counsel directly to our east. Certainly acknowledge the letter of opposition, and it's about impact. So what really is the impact that we're causing to the east property?

Now when you think about this, we still have the landscape the landscape species on-site. And when when you're thinking about impact, you're thinking about setback. You're thinking about height, noise, odor, glare, and what really is can you quantify five feet, a reduction of five feet? We're still maintaining the required setback. My argument and my professional opinion is that there is zero impact.

There is significant landscaping not only on their property, but will be on our property once this is fully built out, and I know the owner is committed to installing that. However, we do not have we will not promote or create any detriment to the public welfare, I should say. Now this is my last slide here, so I'll just summarize basically what I just explained. Granting of the variance would align these three lots with the rest of the subdivision, and denial actually would maintain the inconsistency. The applicant has increased the size of the landscape buffer, so they're not just mitigating for it.

They're actually increasing the size of the landscape buffer compared to what's out there today. There's zero landscape quantity affected by this application. That's important to repeat myself on that. And the last bullet is related to drainage, if there's any concern with drainage. Now should the variance be granted, the applicant will need to file for a new engineering permit because we have we've we're we're amending the site plan, essentially.

So, of course, with any engineering permit, we're required to retain all storm water on our site, which we are doing already, but we will go above and beyond to do that. That's part of the review. We'll be under an additional level of scrutiny by staff through the next permit. What I will make note, and this was mentioned in the the letter that was received, is that there's a lot of flooding at that property line. So we had some spot elevations done over there on our property, and we understand the grade elevation of their property.

So our property line on our side is 17 feet. That's the highest point. The entire property in all of our subdivisions slopes downwards towards the road. We actually have drainage pipes as well to accommodate that. The neighbor's property is at 13 feet. So we wanna come to a consensus on that. We're retaining all our storm water. We believe we're trying to be a good neighbor with that. We certainly don't want any flooding, but the reality is that we can build a retaining wall if possible, but we're retaining all the storm water on our site. The flooding is not as a result of what we're doing here.

Now, I will make one more note as I close here, and I'll skip to my thank you slide there. I will just of course, we want to be a good neighbor, and I will just address a couple of the items for an additional level of clarity to the neighbor. Hopefully, we can come to a consensus on some of these items. But as I was going through the letter, which is very well written, by the way, I will say Section C on page three, the first sentence mentions that the application that seeks to maximize the development opportunities for residential development at the expense of the adjoining owners. Now, I did show you the graphic of those homes that are on a lower lot size, a smaller lot size with far more building lot area, far more developable area.

We're not asking for that. We're asking for a very minimal request here simply to accommodate where the pool is. So five feet into the landscape buffer. I would not use the word maximize in my opinion there. And the last sentence here in the same paragraph is the 15 foot landscape buffer easement has long been a requirement and condition of the Blue Cypress development and track B. Of course, we absolutely acknowledge that. Fully agree. This buffer has been in place since the year 2000. We fully agree. And we're looking for respectfully looking for a little bit of leniency to help us out on these three lots to construct those pools.

Now, I'll make two more notes very quickly. I'll be very brief. Section D on Page four, a couple of sentences down, it says, The final layout of this subdivision was completely within the control of the developer. And that's where I think we can provide an additional level of clarity there, is that this was subdivided in 2022. And I did mention that we do think there was opportunity to redesign this a little bit.

It would essentially look the same, but with a landscape buffer tracked rather than an overlap. So it wasn't a result of what Rob did. It was a result of the previous owner, and we were forced to accommodate that overlap. And I'll skip over to the conclusion very quickly on Page six. And I'll close with this.

The first sentence mentions the PZAB must deny, and must deny is in bold, underline the requested variance. Of course, I hope I provided you enough information to make a sound decision tonight. But really the case is that you all have to make a decision tonight whether you deny it, approve it, continue it, whatever it is. You don't have to do anything is basically what I'm mentioning by this. So I'm sure the applicant or the neighbor will have their interpretation on the word must there.

But of course, we are asking for approval here. And the last piece that I'll note is in that same paragraph, it's mentioned, and I quote, it is abundantly clear that the requested variance is a direct result of the actions of the applicant. Now, it's a very direct statement. They're saying abundantly clear. I'm not sure it is abundantly clear. You know, of course, we disagree. I hope I gave you enough information to make a decision on that. But, you know, we certainly want to work with the neighbor and come to a consensus on this and be a good neighbor for the long term future. So with that, I will turn it over to staff. Again, my name is Zach. We have our team here to answer any questions. And thank you very much for your time.

Zach, before we continue, can we just clarify the width of the landscape buffer reduction? It's five feet. Okay. Because the conditions say 7.5, which is what the first request was for. So it's five feet.

Five feet.

Okay. And that takes account for any deck or anything, because your deck can't be in the landscape buffer either.

Five feet is have to speak into the microphone. Right.

10 feet is the rear setback, so that's what we want to

But if you wanted

a deck around it, that would give you a little bit extra room for a deck.

We want to abide by the rear setback.

Okay. But the deck is less than that, so that's why it was 7.5, I thought, originally is what you wanted.

No. We absolutely want to abide by the rear setback.

Okay.

So this is just a history of the different site plans throughout the years and just showing the 15 foot landscape buffer on the site plan in 2000, in 2013 after litigation, and then 2022 once Track B was subdivided. This slide just shows the proposed layout from the building permit that was returned for corrections because the pool was located within the landscape buffer. And like the agent mentioned, that the attorney then came up with an encroachment agreement, which was recorded. But staff ultimately said that that wasn't acceptable as there are various sections of the LDR that prohibit the permanent structures within the easements. And then Table 7.8-one requires Type B landscape buffers when a property with a residential E land use is adjacent to a commercial rec land use.

A Type B buffer is 15 feet wide. It requires one shade tree every 30 linear feet, a continuous hedge and 10 shrubs every 30 linear feet. The code does allow for landscape buffer with reductions when adjacent to open space. However, the property to the east does not qualify as open space. The applicant is requesting a width reduction to 10 feet to portions of the landscape buffer within lots 12 through 14 for a total of six seventy four square feet and increasing the width of 20 feet in various other areas.

And like the agent mentioned, no loss of plantings or square footage is being requested. A variance is a deviation from bulk regulations of the land development regulations to allow the development of a property. To approve any variance, the Planning Zoning and Adjustment Board is tasked with reviewing the request and determining if the request complies with various standards. Special conditions and circumstances exist as lots eight through 14 are the only lots within Blue Cypress with landscape buffers within the property line, which reduces the overall depth of these lots by 15 feet. Special conditions and circumstances do not or do result from the actions of the applicant as a landscape buffer and setbacks have been in place since 2000.

The applicant built the structures and did not account for a landscape buffer. And if designed appropriately, a pool could have fit without encroaching the buffer. Granting variants will not confer on the applicant any special privilege denied by the comp plan or land development regulations as the LDR does allow for width reduction in certain circumstances and other variances have been granted for landscape buffers. Literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties as all properties within Blue Cypress have a pool and the subdivision does not have a community pool. The request is for the minimum possible as they are only requesting a width reduction for lots 12 through 14 with no decrease in planting quantity.

And they are increasing the buffer width in various other areas for an additional nine sixty one square feet of buffer area. The request complies with the comp plan and the variance process and will not be interest or detrimental to public welfare. Based on the findings contained within staff report and consistency with the variance criteria of the land development regulations, If PZAB requests or recommends approval of the application, the conditions of approval are listed within the resolution and on this slide. And that concludes our presentation.

Just to clarify, PZAB is the final determining body for this item, correct? Correct. You're not recommending approval. You are either approving or denying.

Okay. Can you actually leave let me see if you could go back a couple slides. Yeah, leave right here. The other one. The other one? Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

You do have an interested party, so I don't know if you want to take that before you begin your questions or that's up to you.

I just have yeah, let's just do it that way. Okay.

I think we should.

Good evening. Thank you so much for having me here this evening. My name is Jana Lota. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Holland and Knight with offices at 515 East Las Olas, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I'm here tonight on behalf of three separate interested parties, Black Watch Farms, Inc, Tucker Holdings, LLC, and Laura DeLuca. Ms. DeLuca is the beneficial owner, excuse me, of Black Watch and Tucker Holdings. I'm here on her behalf tonight as Ms. DeLuca unfortunately could not be here with us. She is currently dealing with a serious medical issue.

But I did provide the required letter to the village on Friday indicating my representation of her here today. As you can probably tell from the letter that you received a few days ago, we are here to formally object to the petition that's before you and respectfully request that the Board deny the requested variance. The application is seeking a variance to modify a long standing 15 foot wide landscape buffer easement located along the East Side of Tract B. I know both the applicant and staff has done a good job of highlighting where those 14 lots are located. You can see them here on the aerial.

Just to give you a perspective of the various ownership interests that I represent. First, we see the property outlined in blue. That is probably the most immediately affected property owner. That is the property owned by Black Watch Farms located at 12095 And 99 Pearson Road. Of particular note, that property is located in the Equestrian Preserve area, which, as you know, is a protected area within the village of Wellington.

The area outlined in orange is owned by Chucker Holdings. That is located with no address because it has yet to be developed. It is entitled to develop up to three residential lots, I believe, by virtue of the Blue Cypress approvals. The last property is Ms. DeLuca's residence, which you see denoted with a star. It is that large residential property and located at 12076 Polo Club Road. The Black Watch Farms property is an equestrian property. It is actively used. It is not vacant, speculative or transitional and is actively used for equestrian purposes.

All right. So I'm just going to quickly go

through the 15 foot landscape buffer easement. Again, staff and the applicant have highlighted this a number of times. But again, it stems all the way back to 2000 when the original plat for the Blue Cypress development was approved and site plan. That time, the 10, there were very large lots, were located on the west side of Blue Cypress Lane, which is the main road that goes through the subdivision with Tract B being vacant at that time. And again, the 15 foot landscape easement buffer was provided.

And at that time, the Black Watch property was still owned by Black Watch and was actively used and part of the Equestrian Preserve area. 2013 I'm going go into a little bit more detail of what kind of emanated and resulted in that replat in 2013. But suffice it to say for now, again, that replat also included the 15 foot landscape buffer. And then we, of course, fast forward to 2022, where we have the first introduction of the 14 lots within Platte within Tract B, excuse me. And the, again, 15 foot landscape buffer was still provided.

Now briefly, I'll just pause here on the 2022 approval. What you see on the left side of the image is an excerpt from the PowerPoint presentation that was provided by the applicant when they requested the amendment to the Blue Cypress PUD to allow the 14 lot single family development on Lot B Track B. Excuse me, keep going there. Forgive me. That PowerPoint presentation in its totality is in the backup that you have in front of you.

As you can see, it was represented not only to this Board, which heard the item on a recommendation to the village council, that the 15 foot wide opaque landscape buffer and again, this is an image extracted from their PowerPoint was going to be maintained. I find it interesting that they are using lots 12 through 14 in making that representation. That same the development order issued with that PUD amendment also included an express condition related to the 15 foot wide buffer and specifically referencing the equestrian uses on the property to the east that is owned by our client. After the 2022 approval, there was a number of approvals following that to basically memorialize the 14 lot subdivision. In April 2022, we see the site plan was approved, which included the landscape plans as well for the 14 unit development.

It's interesting to note that and again, these debt plans are in your backup as well that the landscape plans showed the 15 foot landscape buffer. The 15 foot plan showed an example of how a house would be laid out on a lot. They used Lot 13 as an example and showed the buffer in place and no pool at that time. And again, that certified site plan also include the express condition that was in the Cypress Blue Cypress PUD approval that I mentioned on the prior slide. In 2023, there was an ERP permit issued.

I don't believe that has been amended by the South Florida Water Management District. Again, that permit and the plans associated with it are included in your backup. That also showed for the 15 foot buffer as part of the drainage impervious improvements associated with the 14 lot development and also showed a berm to be constructed in that area. And that is something I don't believe has been mentioned tonight. Fast forward to 2024, and we have the plat for the subdivision being presented to the village council.

I presume it went through this body as well, showing the 15 foot easement, and then it was ultimately recorded in 2024. At this point, I want to pause, because there's been a number of representations that it was through no fault of the applicant. It was already subdivided. They were kind of got what they had and couldn't make any changes at that point. The property was acquired by the current applicant in January 2024.

The plat wasn't presented to this body and ultimately to the village council until nine months later in September 2024. I submit to you that there was time that they could have gone and modified that plat if they wanted and then modified the underlying site plan approval to accommodate the additional 7.5 feet on lots 12 through 14 that they mentioned in their presentation. Here's a copy again just of the plat, again showing the 15 foot landscape buffer along the east side. And just so you understand kind of the frustration of our client and why she's here tonight, I want to give you a little bit of the development background with the Blue Cypress development. In 2011 through 2013, the then owner processed a site plan in a plat with the village.

That plat sought to relocate Blue Cypress Lane further west to basically accommodate lots to the east. Blue Cypress Lane basically ran along our client's property beforehand. By virtue of doing that, they were effectively cutting off all access to our client's property, because access from Polo Club Road is encumbered by a conservation easement for wetlands. So what ensued was ultimately a challenge by our client. And then there was a ultimately litigation that the village got embroiled with that resulted in a settlement agreement, which required them again, all this is in your backup that required them to go back to, I believe, this board for the determination of whether or not they misrepresented information in their application, because they did not approach our client or obtain any consent to basically eliminate their access.

It was a finding that access was to be provided that then led to the replat in 2013, creating this kind of duality of roads, these parallel roads that you see in Blue Cypress, and the resulting kind of smaller lots that you see in what's known as Track G1. Fast forward to 2022. The owner has now sold the property. They sold Track G1 and also the road that is now Blue Cypress Boulevard, I believe, that's outlined in blue. And that owner then applies for a variance to vacate Blue Cypress Boulevard.

That was the subject of the litigation, subject of a recorded easement in favor of our client. After we once again had to assert our rights to the village, that application was ultimately withdrawn. So when you see kind of a tone in our letter that there's been this kind of underwriting constant trying to maximize development opportunities on the property to our west, we hope you understand where we're coming from. Now I turn to the criteria for granting a variance and why we believe that it has not been met. And I'll try to get through this as quickly as possible so that we can return you to your deliberations.

First is that there are no special conditions unique to this land. Again, I highlight that the buffers existed for twenty five years long before these lots were ever laid out and designed in 2022 and then ultimately in the plat that was approved in late twenty twenty four. Any constraint results from the design choices, not from the land itself. And that's usually what you consider when you get a variance that there's something so unique to the land that they had no opportunity, they simply cannot change. We dispute that fact.

And again, I just I think there's been this it's been repeated, I think it was even in the staff report that the property was already subdivided and that there was nothing that the applicant could do to adjust these lots. And we don't believe that's true considering they had nine months from the time they purchased the property to when that plat was ultimately presented to the village council for approval to go back and do the slight modifications, change the plat before it was actually presented, and then just simply adjust. Because at that point in time, the site plan is a administrative approval. Second, any alleged hardship is entirely self created. And staff acknowledges as much in their staff report.

The applicant chose the lot sizes, the home footprints, the layouts that left no room for pools while knowing that the buffer existed. They chose to construct a very large home, over 5,000 square feet, on a lot that's less than 0.2 acres. They did so and commenced construction with full knowledge that the rear yards would not accommodate the pools due to the existing buffer. A hardship created by the applicant's own design and timing decisions should not support the granting of a variance. I am sure, given the price of this property, that the applicant did their own due diligence.

I certainly hope that they did. And even if they didn't, I have to say the Platts, as you know, are part of title. They're an exception to title. So they certainly would have had notice of that by virtue of their title commitment and title policy. Third, that the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege.

This is where I would just ask that this Board to be considerate of the precedent that you will establish if you grant this variance. This particular lot abuts an area, a piece of property that is in the equestrian preserve, and has been the entire time. We submit that this buffer is more than just drainage. That's certainly very important to our client, because we know the new building construction has a much higher elevation than the existing polo fields and equestrian fields to the east. But it has long been a policy of this village to make sure that there's the appropriate buffers between incompatible uses and certainly uses that support our equestrian community.

Approval would confer a special privilege not available to similarly situated process and, in our opinion, would establish an improper precedent. Fourth, there is no unnecessary and undue hardship. The applicant had ample opportunity to redesign the subdivision, reduce the home footprints or avoid placing private amenities on constrained lots. The inability to add pools or spas does not constitute

hardship under the land development regulations. The reasonable use of this property is already fully achieved by virtue of the approved residential development. Not

The request is not the minimum variance necessary. The fact that the applicant is seeking to modify the landscape buffer in other areas ignores the underlying reason for the continuous buffer along Track B. The buffer is, again, to preserve the equestrian uses to the east from the residential uses, the noise and the activity that accompanies that use. Our concern is with the construction of the pool that not only is pushing that use and an activity closer to the equestrian uses, but it also is eliminating pervious area that was to be used for drainage. And I still don't know how they're addressing the requirement for a berm.

Our client, once they started the land development and started moving earth over on that property, and we saw the flooding occurring, she reached out to the village of Wellington. And Jim Kelly, who's a senior engineering inspector, met her out at the property and assured her and that was in an email that was included in the backup that the 15 foot landscape buffer, together with all the plans and the other information that they had provided associated with the land development permit for that development, and admittedly, the water is to drain away towards the road where the catch basins were, that she was going to be fine. Now we're faced with that buffer being compromised by virtue of this variance request. Again, I highlight the South Florida Water Management District, which presently requires the full 15 foot wide buffer and berm. In our opinion, proposing more impervious areas and the elimination of a berm in those areas in such proximity with the Black Watch property will only, in our opinion, increase the flooding that already occurs.

And we do believe that this request is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the land development code, as well as the village charter, which many of you know several years ago was amended to make it a village priority to preserve and protect the equestrian community. And that's what this buffer is intended to accomplish. We also cited some other policies, as the applicant even recognized, regarding the need for buffering. And I also cited Section 3.2.2 of the LDR, defines the landscape buffer, and where it is clear that it is used to provide a transition between and to reduce the negative environmental, aesthetic and compatibility of other impacts of one use upon another. And again, I can't highlight enough the fact that, right or wrong, these lots back up to property within the equestrian preserve.

Last, the approval request, we believe, will reduce the buffer that will negatively impact our property. And we do believe there is a real risk of additional flooding onto the Black Watch property by virtue of the new pervious areas within the buffer. The impacts are real and tangible, not speculative. In closing, I just want to say that the applicant had reasonable alternatives. The 14 lot subdivision could have been designed differently.

As we pointed out, they had nine months from the time they acquired the property to when the plat was presented to the village council. Even if they were totally constrained, they could have reduced the home footprint and made the home just slightly smaller. But instead, they chose a much larger home, which is even being marketed with a pool as we speak. The lots, as they pointed out, on the West Side of Blue Cypress, which are much deeper, could have been modified. They had every opportunity prior to the plat being approved in September 2024, but chose not to do anything.

Instead, the applicant proceeded with construction and now seeks an after the fact relief from conditions that were well known, accepted, and repeatedly affirmed. This board has spoken many times over the years in reviewing the plats, the master plan approvals that's come before you for this property, in re approving that 15 foot wide buffer, even when they sought to subdivide it to 14 lots. We are asking merely that you do not undo those decisions simply because the land requires it, or because the applicant feels they need it to add a pool and spa for a home that's been over designed. For all these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Zoning Board Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board deny the requested variance. So I appreciate the time that you've given me.

I'd like to reserve time to answer any questions that you may have or to rebut any information that the applicant may provide. Again, I appreciate your patience. And again, we respectfully request that you deny the variance. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I would just like to clarify. Ms. Lota had stated that this Board reviewed the at that time only got reviewed by counsel. They are now at administrative process. So this Board would not have seen the

plat. CHRISTIAN BERNANKE.

Any comments or questions from the board?

Who wants to start?

CHRISTIAN I have some questions. The berm that Ms. Lodo was referencing, are you guys planning to build a berm? Is that so? Can you expand on that?

Yes, sir. It's required as part of a Type B buffer. So yes, we will implement that upon issuance and installation of the landscape.

Okay. Second question. The drainage issue that her client is concerned about, is there a way to mitigate that drainage by adding a great drain pipe, connecting it with current sewage? We do have drain pipes on all

of the lots there, actually, that run out into the street.

What about along that buffer area that's being impacted along the east side?

We certainly could add a retaining wall, if that helps. We could commit to that.

Just for clarification, Doctor. DeLuca's Black Watch Farm is in the EZOD, but not Trackbeak, right? That's correct.

Have a couple of questions. Lot 12, you said it's not vertical yet.

Yes, sir.

So then it would be feasible to redesign it to eliminate the need for this variance. CHAIRMAN For Lot 12, yes. That is true. CHAIRMAN So was that considered?

CHAIRMAN It's considered. And if we need to commit to that, we certainly can.

CHAIRMAN BERNANKE.

I think all my other questions kind of got answered. Was I guess I have a question. Obviously, we're in a conundrum now. And I guess I want to know what other steps or attempts to kind of come up with a solution other than this variance?

And

obviously, I've heard both sides. But could there be another solution where putting in denser landscaping to kind of better create a buffer in a smaller area with also improving some landscape, some additional drainage, putting in a French drain across the whole thing, and making sure that that area stays very dry. Could there be a solution that would be more amenable to the adjacent property owner other than just saying, here's a variance and that's it?

We certainly can commit to adding additional landscaping, additional drainage methods within reason, of course, with the drainage methods. But we certainly want to be a good neighbor, and we understand the frustration that the neighbor has had with the previous owners. Don't want to replicate that relationship whatsoever, so we want to maintain a good relationship. So we can certainly commit to that.

Okay. So the dilemma that this board faces is that any sort of negotiation or acceptance of that kind of has to be done now, because we have to vote. So it's if we don't vote for the variance, then obviously there's nothing that you can negotiate out of that because we just said no.

Right.

Certainly. Well, I can tell you we can commit to additional landscaping. So we can provide denser landscaping in the reduced area. We have 10 feet to play with. If this variance is granted, we can make it a condition well, you all, of course, could make it a conditional approval to provide denser landscaping.

It already is opaque due to the standards of the Type B buffer, but we can provide additional on top of that. And that maybe you can give staff leeway on what, you know, the design and palette would need to look like because ultimately, we'll have to design that. And then if there are, you know, we we would commit to additional drainage efforts on those three lots. I think we're doing a lot already to drain the sites. We have drain pipes within each lot right now draining out to the street, and all of the lots are sloped down. I really don't me personally, my professional opinion, don't I think the drainage is an issue, but we can commit to a retaining wall or some additional drainage method to provide some more assurance.

I personally think that's a good solution, a seven foot into the buffer, have a retaining wall there, have a drain that runs on your side of the property or your side of the wall, and then have some buffer plants on the vegetation on the opposite side of the wall and on, obviously, the the your property side of the wall. To me, that's instead of, like, having one house without a pool, that doesn't make sense, and it provides inconsistency to the rest of the project, too. So it's either all or none, in my opinion. What were you about to say, Mr. Stellings?

I just want to add that the development of the property would need to ensure that no water flows onto the neighboring property. And so I don't know that we want to get into solution to drainage as part of this variance request. That would be handled by the engineering department, and the design would be up to the engineers at that time. And so that's my only

But as allowance of the variance, are we not able to dictate certain

You criteria? Could require a retaining wall or other measures to address

the need An engineering would have to say yes,

makes To sense. Enhance the buffer itself. But in terms of the drainage, again, don't know that it's necessarily a nexus to the variance reduction. Okay. Understood.

I have some questions about the Platte. I heard Ms. Lota say that the plat was first presented to the village in September 2024. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And the applicant purchased the property in January 2024?

That's correct.

And before September, there was of 2024, there was no plat on record for this project? That correct?

Okay.

There may have been a boundary plat.

Just the boundary? But there was nothing that designated the roadway or the lots before September 2024, right? So when the applicant purchased the property, he had full leeway in designing that plat, the size of the lots, where the road was going to go, and he also was aware that there was a 15 foot buffer easement, right?

Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, we're not skirting around that fact. Certainly, the applicant had and actually, that's kind of new information that's being brought out. You know, we were under the impression that there was there was not opportunity to redesign the the plat at that time, but, you know, we're asking for permission here. This is not an after the fact request. We don't we didn't construct the pool already, and we're coming in asking for the encroachment now. So we're asking for permission to construct the pool, given the findings that you have tonight.

No, I understand. But you represented it as if your client purchased this project and there was already some construction and lots that he was stuck with, and that's not the case because the plat was presented by your client. There was no subdivision of the lots.

He had

full right to design the lots to the dimensions and take the full buffer easement into consideration, right?

You are absolutely correct. I misspoke.

Okay. So you're asking for permission. You're not presenting a circumstance that wasn't actually created by your client here.

Right. The plat was recorded nine months after the applicant purchased the property. Of course, there's due diligence that goes along with that. But as part of the staff report, I will say there there this was subdivided in 2022, and I know that the plat was recorded in 2024, but that is a date of what the previous owner did to the to the property. So Rob had the understanding that he could build 14 homes here. That's the reality. He knew he could build 14 homes. He probably went through the process to get the plat approved, which a surveyor handles anyways. So I'm not discounting the fact that, if he had known that, he could have added a landscape tract and then shifted the road. It's actually a lot to think about when you're designing the subdivision.

But, yes, you're absolutely correct. It's it's entirely I wouldn't say it's entirely our fault. I think it was there was just ignorance present at that time. That's what I would say.

Okay. But there were a lot of documents, as we've heard staff and Ms. Loda and even you presented, that showed that there was actually a 15 foot buffer easement. It was within the boundaries of the project.

Right. It's been there since 2000.

Yeah. Okay.

I I have a couple questions. So and I will say that I didn't really understand the the time, you know, from purchase to the September plat. However, given where we are and I'm so glad that you said that you guys want to be good neighbors and all of that, because that's really going to be the most important thing here But what I want to understand, beyond the fact that well, actually, have a couple of questions, because the staff report said that it is consistent. That last summary page, could you pull that back up again? Yes, thank you.

Staff analysis?

So it provides all of the points of a variance with what they have to meet. And they are consistent with all requirements except for the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

Okay. But then they're saying that it is a result. So I wanted to kind of get some clarification from you on that. Well,

I think that what he just acknowledged is that they did have the ability, but did not

But did not Right. Okay. Didn't pop. Right. Okay. Okay. So there we are. So that's so that's good. But I'm very concerned about the drainage, and also the fact that it does border on the EOZD. And we've got the other owners here represented. And also, I guess I don't understand if we approve a variance, that could set a precedent that I don't think we want to be responsible for. Is that correct? It would would a variance?

I I think it I think it's specific to the individual Okay. Property that you're considering.

Fine. Then I have questions for the the agent who represents the three. Can you just explain to me, because we heard from the applicant's agent that they acknowledged that Lot Number 12 has not begun. Effectively, we're now only worried about two lots, Okay? Because we can agree to that.

But beyond the fact that it doesn't for the length of the pool, the way I understand it, for the length of the pool, the berm will still be there, but the buffer will be reduced by Five feet. Five feet, right? Mhmm. What is that what's the concern? So that sounds like so how long how long is the pool? Let's say a pool is what? 20 feet? So we've got two pools, 40 feet with five feet of reduced, you know Vegetation. vegetation, right. You mentioned, and I wrote it down, you said the noise of the construction of

the pool. Noise associated with the activity associated with a pool.

Well, said the noise associated with the construction of the pool. Right. So I wrote that down. You said that.

I think it's not just construction being ongoing.

Oh, yes. Well, the whole project the construction's ongoing. Yeah, you can't control that.

MARY if I may clarify. And I was hoping when you saw kind of the history of the development and the different issues our client had to intervene in, One thing is her property is an equestrian use. We believe that that 15 foot buffer in its totality is intended to help buffer that equestrian use from the more incompatible residential use of single family, smaller lots, and to keep the activities that you typically would see in a rear yard further away from the property line. And so the buffer serves two purposes. One is to ensure that there is an adequate buffer in transition between the residential use and the activity associated with that, such as the pool, from the equestrian use on the other side.

And I don't believe that there's a wall or anything being proposed. And we have horses, large animals and whatnot. So that's another slight concern. So it's the buffering that the 15 feet provides. And then it's also the drainage issue, which I appreciate that you recognize.

And the one thing I still don't fully understand, because I do know that the South Florida Water Management District permit calls for a berm. And I don't see that how they can accommodate a berm necessarily in that reduced area. So it's establishing a precedent where you are eroding that buffer that is meant to support and protect the EOZD and properties in the equestrian preserve area. That I would be most concerned is the precedent that is and I appreciate what your legal counsel said that they're site specific. But when you start kind of doing that because I know I was very involved, probably many of you know, in the Wellington South and North representing at that time Miss Victoria McCullough.

And there, I know fairly significant buffers were included both north and east of her property for single family homes on much larger lots than is being proposed here to buffer them from her equestrian residential estate. So here, it's only a 15 foot buffer, and they're looking to erode that. I know it's only now five feet. I will just quick make a note, because I noticed this on your slide.

No, that would be 10

feet Kelly, well, they're providing 10, I believe, and that's

For just the pool, the length of the two pools.

Yeah, I just noted on the conditions you had the 7.5, and I know that So I just wanted to make sure that that was caught. But I understand that we're talking only five feet, but on some levels, it's the principle of the matter. It's now allowing that active use that is totally impervious, closer to the property line.

But excuse me, the homes are being built.

Exactly.

But you can't hold them responsible for the residential lots that are being built next to the EOZD, as far as the noise and the activity

of I residential mean, we understand that there's noise associated with the construction. Our biggest concern is, again, that they're putting an active use, accessory use, associated with the residential development. The pool, the spa, the pool deck, which for entertaining children, whatever, closer and encroaching into that buffer that was meant to protect the equestrian uses.

I understand. I get that. But the homes are being built, and there is going to be people living in them and families entertaining in backyards. There might be horses we understood 20 feet away

And the rules established is that there was going to be a 15 foot buffer with these I residential do understand. And the point I hopefully tried to make is that they bought the property knowing that. They had an opportunity, if they wanted to, to adjust that before that plat was presented to the village council in I September 2020 hear you. And it's, you know, that's I don't know what else to say.

Can I ask

you a question?

Thank you. You know, aside from the drainage issue, not bringing up a wall for that, but would a wall help the concern about noise and buffering and all that good stuff as

far A wall is

certainly more effective than landscaping. I learned that the hard way on a mine approval that I had to do up in St. Lucie. But unfortunately, I can't necessarily agree. My client, unfortunately, was unable to be here. So any expressed conditions like that, I'm not a position to necessarily Understood. Agree to

And again, I just want to clarify, this is not the EZOD. This is land adjacent to it.

It's not and

on top of that, it's their land that they own, right? So they're asking for special permission, sure, for the buffer, but it's still their land and it's not the EZOD. So I want to make sure that

distinction And that's is not our issue. Our issue is that that buffer was put into place to protect the EZD land.

Understood.

And they're not respecting that buffer. And they could have respected that buffer. They can they've got full use of their property now, because they're currently building a home on that house that is going to be valued, I'm sure, in the millions of dollars, based upon the listing that we saw. It's they could have made the footprint smaller just to accommodate the additional five feet, but they chose not to. And the precedent that I am aside from the precedent of eroding away buffers that were intended to protect the equestrian preserve area, is also the precedent that you are allowing a developer to basically who had full knowledge of the facts, or, you know, ignorant of the facts, to go in, build, and then come in after the fact, because they want to achieve the full use of their property as they see is reasonable based upon the other homes that are in space.

Sure, was a huge error on their part. Trust me, I'm no fan of developers. I think

that's And pretty so it's just I have a question. Because they did say that they would be willing to work with you. Sounds like they want to work with you. Maybe they approached the neighbors, or maybe they didn't. I don't know. But is that something that, I mean, are they amenable to that?

Well, we did receive a call after, I believe, they got our interested party letter. I did receive a call from the presenter with culture hearing on Monday morning. Think I called you right back, if I'm not mistaken. You were surprised. Okay.

I have

another It's more just a coordination of trying to And we were even trying today.

Good. I encourage that. Did you want to interject? Because I had another question.

No, when you all are done with your questioning, I need to

I clarify

a couple of

did ask that question about the precedent, because I wanted to ask about that. But I'm going to go with it's going to be site specific. I don't believe that if either we recommend or we approve it, or we tell you guys to go work it out amongst yourselves. If we did approve it, I don't think it would set a precedent for the rest of the development right up there. In other words, I believe that whoever develops those other lots, they are going to know about this.

They are not going to make this same mistake, you know, and get in a situation nobody wants to have to come and ask for a variance. I mean, it's so I just wanted to I know that they're very not happy to be here.

And I understand what you're saying. I think my concern's more on other locations of properties that abut the EPZ that have buffer requirements. That, well, they granted it here, so why can't you grant it here? Even other situations where somebody buys property puts on a house that's bigger than it can be or needs to

be, and

finds themselves that they have to ask for variance and can show that they were able to show satisfaction with this criteria, or that criteria in the variants I actually have a

question for the applicants' agent? Exist. Do you have a question for it? I was

just saying that's why variances exist. That's why it's even possible to do so, because not everything is cookie cutter. So

But variances have fairly difficult standards. And, again, as I went through mine, this is, in my opinion, self created Self created with the design and the layout of that building. Because even with the lot size, they could have made that building smaller.

Thank you.

I want to ask Mr. Stillings a question. Mr. Stillings, the criteria that staff presented, you had, what was it, six Seven. Seven different items. Does an applicant have to comply with all seven in order to be able to DAY: be granted a variance?

Very interesting question. I think the general or direct sort of legal response would be yes, but it's ultimately this at the board's discretion in terms of whether they want to approve it or not, and then it's the the the risk of whether it's ultimately upheld. So it's not it's not a a strict if they don't, then the board must deny it.

That's your interpretation of the code.

Of the code?

Or of the requirements for variances under our development review manual and the code.

I don't recall the exact language. I'd have to look at it to see what it specifically says. It does say there are seven standards for variants.

Okay. It was my understanding that we have to find that all of the criteria are met. Is that not correct?

That is my understanding of the law. Mr. Stillings is the interpreter of our code. And if his opinion is different, then you should rely on that. But, you know, under the circumstances, the situation that the applicant finds himself in do appear to be self created.

And your staff has said that, the applicant has acknowledged that, and the interested party has acknowledged that. In light of the fact that they haven't really had adequate time to discuss any particular resolution, does it make sense to postpone it to a date certain to allow sufficient time to be able to try to work something out with the neighbor? And if not, and if it can't be worked out, then return to the board. And my you would have to make a decision at that point based on the factors that you're required to consider. It's not a matter of feeling sorry for the applicant or anything like that.

You you are required to apply those factors. And so I I don't know whether that's something that the interested party would entertain a, you know, time to try to find some mutually agreeable resolution, but that would be something I would recommend. You need to come to the microphone.

Can I make a comment on that?

Yes.

Well, if we already have one factor that isn't complied with, can't be complied with, even if there is a resolution between the interested party and the applicant here, that factor still would never be met and there could never be a variance granted. But your staff and

the interpreter of the code just told you that he believes that it's still within your discretion. And my suggestion is that if it can be worked out between the interested party and the applicant, and they could agree, It could be postponed to your next meeting or to a meeting certain, and perhaps it can be resolved. Otherwise, you know, you can proceed with your vote tonight. And I do want to mention to Ms. Lota, I did misspeak earlier before the meeting, the enabling ordinance for PZAB that was adopted was actually said that a quorum is for and approval is based on a majority of those present.

MS. Also, if I could just add, one of the things that when we were talking about the retention wall as a possible solution. One of the things I wanted to mention is that Black Watch installed a 12 foot fence along that perimeter. So that's currently backing up to those lots. As a matter of fact, I think Kelly was out and has some pictures to provide for that. So I just wanted to

When did they when was that done?

So there's no horses that are going to run into that wall, if there was one, because of the fence?

If there was a wall, it would be a fence, a wall, and a berm and landscaping. But the fence, I believe, is Black Watch Farms' fence and was installed under an ag exemption.

I mean, if I can just say something. This all does concern me because we have a property that's abutting the EOZD and when you have incompatible uses, it's important that we uphold our buffer requirements. That's one of the ways that we mitigate the impacts. So if we're getting into a discussion of a potential resolution just between the interested parties here and the applicant, I am concerned about opening the door to other properties and other protections that provide these buffers for our EOZD in the future. So I understand, you know, that people might want to consider that, but I have that greater concern because chipping away little by little is how we lose the important protections and buffering is one of the few ways that we can protect properties in the EOZD from incompatible uses next to it.

And so I don't think it's just a matter of the interested party here. I think there's a greater picture to consider for the entire village of Wellington and what this means.

Don't think the buffering is specific to the EOZD. I think it's required. It's incompatibility Right. And

between uses.

And while it may set some sort of policy precedent, it does not set a legal precedent. You're not bound by a decision on this particular property to grant a request for a variance on future property.

Look at Isla Carroll.

We're effectively looking at Yes. It's specific to this property. I don't know if staff has any thoughts on whether you would recommend postponing to a date certain. I don't know whether the applicant or the interested I party are

interested have question for the applicant, though, before we do that, regarding, you know, a way to get to your pool. Not the pool that you see here, but what about a just a lap pool in those two properties with those dimensions? You get your you know, you get the buffer, and then they just turn into those two properties alone have lap pools.

I know there's board member. We would love to come up You consensus know, I think we've given a lot in terms of conditions that could be presented tonight in terms of denser landscaping, additional drainage infrastructure, retaining wall. We do have the 12 foot fence on the other side. And a berm. Go ahead. And a berm. And a berm, of course, which we plan on installing. So I just don't think the lap pool would simply work with Rob. Think we're Okay.

Saying, I'm you know, for everybody to think the consensus work here is

if you can get the adjacent property owner in support, it would be a lot easier for this board to move forward with something.

Of course. Yeah. I mean, I agree that would be a lot easier for everybody. But, you know, I would love to come to a consensus tonight. I know the neighbor mentioned that she can't make a decision tonight because the owner is not here. But I think a lot of those conditions that we presented could be considered tonight. I think that was a big concession.

But I don't think well, I'll just say that, you know, because you said you made one statement. You said, in your opinion, you don't think the drainage is a problem. That's not your lane to say that. We need an engineer to say that. We Tim

backed that up and said all the drainage has to go

to the street. JAMES Yeah. There were drainage requirements. Yes. JAMES It was stated that the drainage issue was prior to the development of these lots, that it was when the property was effectively undeveloped. Well, so but the drainage issue, I believe you said, has been addressed.

No, sir. The drainage issue Jana Lota once again for the interested parties. The drainage issue, our property still floods. And so just to make that clear. And there's one other question I had, because I didn't see it in the conditions. And I apologize that I'm jumping around a little bit here. There's an express, and it reminded me when someone said about the, I think, Ms. Cohen's comment about the EOZD buffers. In the development order in 2022 that approved the amendment to the master plan, there is an express condition, two conditions regarding the 15 foot buffer. One expressly references the equestrian uses to the east for that 15 foot buffer.

So my question is, is in addition to the replat and other things they would need to do because they have to if this is approved tonight, do they need to go back and modify the PUD development order to revise that condition? Because it provides for the full 15 foot buffer along the as shown, again, was reflected to the village council as a 15 foot wide, not an undulating 15 foot buffer.

Ms. Lota, you said it's referring to the equestrian uses on the property? The

EOZD uses, the equestrian I think commercial recreation uses, I think. And I can it's on my PowerPoint here.

DELL: Our buffers are based on land use designations from our land use map. So even though it's within the EOZD, the buffer requirement is that you have residential next to equestrian commercial recreation.

It was expressly the equestrian was expressly called out in Section two, Condition four. And forgive me, I'm just trying to find it because I thought I had that language in my presentation here. But it is in the backup that I provided. It was part of the Resolution R2022 that was approved by the village council that approved the amendment to the master plan.

It's just a reference of the land use, the adjacent land use to the east.

But recognizing use, yes.

So but I think for my clarification, are you the flooding is occurring on the applicant's property or on Black Watch?

On Black Watch's property.

Is it drainage coming from Black Watch that previously went onto their property? Or is it It's

having flooding that's a occurring in that area. We've had quite a dry spell for a while. So I had actually asked our client to get pictures of it to send, but unfortunately, the rain just started fairly recently. So I'm sure if she were to go out there today, she would probably see something.

Right. Well, regardless, I mean, the requirements are you're not permitted to discharge water onto somebody's

I understand, sir.

And so the design of these lots would need to accommodate and address any water leaving the property line. So again, don't know that it's a function of this variance. And I understand the concern by your client, but I don't know that it's related to the approval of this variance or not.

I agree.

And our position was, again, that the village, when the drainage issue was first identified, when the construction started, the village referred to the 15 foot wide easement and buffer as part of the drainage function to that once everything was fully constructed, why she wouldn't have an issue. And that's now being modified. We have a South Florida Water Management District permit that has drainage plans that show the 15 foot wide buffer, again, along the entire length of the property and also calls for a berm. I'm curious as to how they are going to accommodate a berm within the 10 foot buffer instead of the 15 foot buffer. But certainly and I understand they would have to go through the process of amending all those permits and meeting all the standards.

But it is just a very realized concern by our client, and then but it's only one of the two reasons, and the other one is, of course, just the buffer the buffer of the residential uses from the equestrian preserve uses.

How do you feel about postponing and talking with your client

I addressing those appreciate

it again. We appreciate that they reached out. We tried to connect. Our client can speak via phone. So if I mean, if that's the preference of this board

I mean, I'm just saying that because I don't know how this going go to

vote on it.

I know my client is more than willing to speak with them. We're not sure how they might be able to address our concerns, but we're more than willing to listen.

Do you think there is a solution that they could come up with that would

I mean, were some things mentioned tonight that were new options that I don't believe have been mentioned before. And I appreciate Corey. I didn't know that they had a fence on their property.

It's came to me here,

so I appreciate you pointing that out to me. Yes, it's a 12 So

do want to take a few minutes to call her and say, hey, this is what

I'd be happy to if you'd

Because like to again, if the way it looks, somebody's going leave here unhappy. And I'd rather both of you be happy somewhat

versus I would rather uphold our code. I don't think that this is a fruitful discussion. I think that we have an admission that this is caused by the applicant, and we can't meet the factors required to grant a variance. I think that even if we didn't have an interested party here tonight, we would still be looking at the factors, and looking at the fact that the applicant doesn't meet them all, and that's what we're required to do. So don't think this is trying to set excuse me.

Stoeck just said that you're wrong.

Me speak.

Let her speak.

So I think that's important, and I think that we should vote on this item based on the criteria we're required to look at.

One question I have. If we do proceed and the variance is denied, and then the two property owners come to some sort of resolution, then could they come back? Aren't they precluded from asking for another variance?

They cannot ask for the same, correct. I just want to point out, So the buffer requirement is on both sides of the line. The same 15 foot is required on the residential side as would be required on the equestriancommercial side.

So they have to install it, you mean?

No. If and when this property changes because it's essentially I don't want say grandfathered in, but it is developed as it's developed. Unless they came forward with another change to the property, or when they did, that buffer requirement would be applied. And so you would have a 30 foot or 30 less, whatever, you know, the the change might be. But so it it's it just to point out that it's on sort of both sides of that line when it comes to equestrian commercial property.

Right. Which is just the black

Black

watch. Correct. Yeah. Okay. I personally would I hear what Tatiana is saying, as far as you feel that your understanding is that they all have to be met to the criteria, all seven criteria, to be met in order for us to or not met. Or actually, only one of them doesn't have to be met in order for us to deny the request. In other words, doesn't have to your understanding is that

All or none.

All or none. But Tim says that perhaps that's not the case. It's still up to us. So that

I will tell

you where the stickler is.

I

looked at our development review manual and the factors, and it did not specify one way or another whether they all

stickler have to be met. And so Mr. Stillings' interpretation is a reasonable interpretation, given that it does not specify one way or another.

And I prefer that the parties work it out amongst themselves before we have to do this. I believe that there should be that opportunity if they're both amenable to it. Because like you and it's not about making it, it's about interpretation of whether you know, what we just discussed. So I think it's important to give them that opportunity. And I'm actually kind of concerned that the only reason I know that you feel that even if there wasn't an interested party, that there would still be cause to deny it.

Okay, that's how you feel, but I believe that they should have the opportunity to try to work it out amongst themselves if they can. I don't know why they haven't. I agree that, and I think everybody agrees, that the applicant, you know, lost the opportunity to avoid this. Okay. They're being human. They say they want to be, you know, good neighbors.

Let's let them, you know, the problem that

I have is that the applicant had all the information in the world available to them to know that that 15 foot buffer was there. The applicant chose to build large homes. The applicant now wants to put in pools. Everything was their choice from the beginning. So, rather than asking for permission from the beginning, now they're basically asking for forgiveness and leeway and not complying with our code requirements because of the choices that the applicant made. Is the essential issue and the problem that I have with even considering granting a variance.

Kelly, the site plan that you had shown in your presentation that was approved. Next slide. Yeah, that one.

So this was the proposed layout from the building permit that was returned. So this hasn't been approved. This is where the actual house is, but not where the pool was approved for because there

is no pool.

In the microphone?

There is no pool. This was the building part, the layout from the building permit for the pool. This is the actual location of the house and the landscape buffer, but the pool was returned because it was in the landscape buffer.

Okay. Was there any site plan or anything that was submitted that had the pool within the landscape buffer?

Not with this is within the landscape buffer.

Right. But is this the first document that they submitted for this lot that Yes. Had the pool on it? Okay.

I have a question for the applicant. Do you have a purchase agreement on any of these lots under consideration? Okay. Thank you.

CHRISTIAN

BERNSTEIN: I think if you want to go strictly by the book, I think Ms. Yakis is correct.

No, I don't. I'm not saying that's I our

think if we go strictly by the book, there's no point in having a counsel.

Yeah, And I also think that There's criteria.

I understand. My point is every JULIE rule needs to have a little bit of gray area. And if we can come to some sort of resolution between the parties, that's a lot better than us just making a determination.

All we're talking about is them having a smaller pool or no pool on two lots. It's not the end of the world. We're not making them unbuildable, unsellable lots.

But then you're denying the neighbors to have an opportunity to work it out amongst themselves.

Why don't we just let them go back and

understand the I would suggest

that you go ahead and have the public hearing tonight. And then let the parties the party and the interested party make their closings. And then if you decide that it is appropriate to postpone it to a date certain to give them time to try to negotiate, then you should do so after all of that has occurred so that when it comes back to you next time, it's that all of that has been done. And then it's just a matter

of deliberation and discussion. MR. Their closing arguments are going to be much different or could be much different after more resolution. If they come up and finish the arguments now and we say, Okay, we're not going to decide, then

MS. Then conduct a public hearing tonight, and then you can have them come back for their closings after they've had an opportunity to discuss it, if that's what you choose to do. Or you can move forward with a vote tonight.

Well, regardless, we need to open it up for public comments. Yes. Present if we have any. Let's open it for Yeah, I'll make a motion to open for Second. Public

All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any public comments? Okay.

I'll make a motion to close. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

All right. Public comment is closed.

We're one step further. All right. So they have an opportunity to make a closing.

Well, I think what we just discussed is that if you intend to postpone to a date certain, then you'll go ahead and have the closings at that time.

But somebody needs to make a motion either for recommending approval for the variance or not, or proposing, you know, postponing Yeah.

To postpone?

To a date certain.

To date certain.

To the next PZAB meeting. What's the date of the next PZAB meeting?

April this third Wednesday of the month.

April 15.

April 15.

:Tax Day.

:Yeah. :But I guess my question was?

:I'm seeing a :We come on up to the

can't hear you.

:She has a hearing that night.

May? Ms. Jana Lota once again, and I apologize. I know for a fact I have a hearing because I've postponed a meeting in Davie to that date. It's for their town council meeting. Apologies.

What about May?

May 20.

May 20. Do you want to speak?

Thank you for allowing me to speak for just a closing remark. I will say that I still do think that we've given a few concessions here that I think are very reasonable when we continue this and we continue to work with the neighbor. I'm honestly not sure. I'm trying to think in my head what more could we give at this point to, you know, remedy this situation. If this is denied tonight, you know, in terms of noise impact, there could be kids running around, playing a football game. I don't know. Otherwise, a pool in that same spot. So really in terms of impact like that, I I I don't think there's an impact, but we're open to working with the neighbor. We wanna work with the neighbor. That's why we've given these concessions tonight.

It's just I'm not sure what else we could provide in addition to the drainage, the berm, not proposing a pool at all. Tonight? Still wouldn't have a pool at

that moment.

With him on the phone.

Okay. So

to represent in a in a second hearing.

Because the property owner's land use attorney has a conflict with that date. And so

Yeah. I mean, understood. But there are multiple attorneys that we were directed to. I mean, there's one person

We're not going to force Doctor. DeLuca to get a different attorney because it doesn't fit her date versus your date.

No, understand. She's not the only person working on this, I believe. Okay.

If the position, then I would recommend that you just move forward and take a vote tonight.

I think we should vote.

I would like to be a friendly neighbor. I would like to come to a resolution. I've just been waiting until the May is trouble is problematic.

Stay tuned,

But it's problematic for you either way.

Yes.

You know, maybe it's up to you, but

It is up to you. So we need a decision one way or another. It's already

And, like, quick.

We'd respectfully ask that a vote be made tonight rather than continue and taking into consideration all the concessions that we did make in our earlier presentation.

Okay. So then we're going to need to go forward with the if you have any more questions.

I have a question. What if it's two to two?

Then it fails.

Okay. Got it.

It would need to be either four to zero or three to one.

Sounds good. Okay.

We need to go forward with the closings.

WILLIAMS: WILLIAMS: Closings? Yeah. Mean, guess if there's no request to

CHRISTINE Closing statements?

Right. CHRISTINE want to move forward. Let's proceed.

Closing statements by the applicant.

Do you have any closing statements? Yeah,

who goes first?

It's on your sheet there. Let me pull up the I believe it's the applicant.

Applicant, I believe.

Did you find it? It's right on your sheet. Yeah. There's lots

of stuff on that sheet.

How about three public cross examination, final arguments by applicant, final questions and then?

The interested party does not get a closing statement. In the new rules, interested party does not. So it would be just final argument by the applicant.

Okay. That's new. All right. Closing arguments from the applicant then.

Rob Gray, owner of the property in question. Thank you guys for your time and appreciate all the work. And I do understand some of the points that were made from the opposition. And, you know, there is truth to the fact that this does predate till 2000. I think some clarity on how I came to this property in 2024.

There was an approved site plan and the process of the replat was already very much down the line. The delay from replat from sorry, change of ownership to replat was based on the change of ownership and the process. So I do understand that this buffer has been in place for a very long time. I also, during this, went to my trusted counsel to try to rectify the situation of the buffer easement without involving anyone. I do not want to be here. I've never been here to ask for a variance. I've been a developer in Wellington for ten years. I've lived here for twenty. You know, I built most of the houses on Blue Cypress successfully, and I I I would never I've never I've never asked for anything like this before. This is a circumstance that I did not wanna be in.

Understanding that I was advised incorrectly as to how to address that at an HOA level, which has been a process that we've dealt with before when it comes to encroaching to build pools, whether in other areas within Blue Cypress under correct protocol. This was not correct. And I was advised incorrectly, which puts me here today. But I do believe that this is a very strong case for a variance. Your staff believes that.

And, you know, we are asking for the minimum. We are more than happy to forego any variance on 12, Lots 13 And 14. All we're asking for is a variance to be consistent, not to vary, right? As we've said and is very clear, every home on Blue Cypress has a pool. We are just asking for a a minimal, the minimum requirement to be consistent in a community that has pools. That is it. And we, you know, the the concern of the drainage, these these pools will have to go through engineering. There's an engineering site plan that exists. Drainage will be addressed. We we we have civil engineers that that do full drainage plans for every property we own.

Those are provided to the village and the building department approves those or denies them and we have to revise them. So drainage will be addressed throughout this entire process. I'm more than happy to add additional buffer in. You know, they, as staff had said, there's a 12 foot fence with green screen that has been put up on the Black Watch property. So from a impact standpoint, I mean, that has probably more of a negative impact on my property than it would my pools would have on theirs.

That's my opinion. The other thing I want to clarify is that the zoning is very unique at Black Watch is equestrian commercial. That is why the buffer has to exist. If this was an equestrian property, equestrian residential, there would be no buffer needed. Not that that changes what we're in today, but I think there is a strong emphasis on the equestrian preserve and preserving that.

This is actually equestrian commercial property and there's very few of those within the preserve. So as staff also said, if they were ever to redevelop that into a commercial property, additional buffer would be added on their side of the property. So as we've tried to prove, there's zero impact. I understand they have opposition and they've had history within this site with previous developers and previous ownerships that have nothing to do with me. And I I do I I do understand the frustration.

But her previous the previous issues do not pertain to this issue. You know, I would be more than happy to talk to them. We have attempted to talk to them before about other things. We have had very little little opportunity or any interest in resolutions. That's why I don't wanna prolong this further.

I I would hope that they would be open to it, but that's just I I don't have a strong feeling that that will we'll be able to come to resolution. I think we're doing everything we can understanding that there is a variance. You know, we are asking for special permission. But within that, we are we are adding in and complying in every way we can. So as a you know, I I'm here just to be a good neighbor and create a consistent product in a community that has pools and to be able to continue building on that street respectfully. And I hope that you guys can understand that.

Thank you. Right. Oh, Kelly, before can you pull that staff analysis up again real quick?

Sorry. Final questions from the Board.

I just want to look at this real quick.

So staff agrees that the special conditions and circumstances are the result of the actions of the applicant, correct? When did construction begin on the homes in Lots 13 And 14?

Permit was issued in 2024.

Kelly, you need to speak into the microphone.

The permits were issued in 2024 for the houses.

After this applicant purchased the property?

And after they were platted, yes.

Okay. So the applicant had the opportunity to build smaller homes or site them differently on the property? Correct. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board for the applicant, staff, or the interested parties?

I just want to have staff just I want to ask, can you summarize all of this as far as the parts just highlight the parts that you have issues with.

It's really the only one that staff felt that it didn't comply with was that it wasn't a result from the applicant. Like it was mentioned, the buffer existed since 2000. And the owner purchased the lot after the buffer was there. And he had the opportunity to design the lot and design the house a specific way.

Right. Okay. And so the property above Black Watch is it Black Watch or Blackwater? Black Watch. Sorry. Is that also commercial recreational? Yes. Okay.

Is there any other process in the future that if both parties were agreed to that could amend this or are we stuck because it's the buffer adjacent to the equestrian?

I I mean, there's been some debate among staff as to that question. I I think and miss Loda raised it as well. You know, alternatively, I think there could be an amendment to the the development order regarding that condition. But at the time that the applicant came in, the direction was to pursue the variance. Corey, don't know if you want to elaborate on that.

Right. So then

Yeah, I would like to hear anything else Corey has to say.

I don't know if there's much to elaborate. I mean, things are brought to us, we look at what we can consider and and as far as where those conditions were originally provided and how we would modify them. So I I I think that if there was if it was denied and there was some means to come back, it it would need to be somewhat creative on our part, whether it be master master plan plan amendment amendment or be some other application process. But to Tim's point, this is very unique because this was done prior to Wellington's incorporation. And so there are certain things that our code provides procedure for that are different than what the county had.

And so we are now dealing with the residual of that and how we proceed forward.

And I think the rationale, just to give you a little bit more, the rationale for the variance was that we were dealing with these three lots alone because of their relatively narrowness. The lots south of these have a little more depth. And then the the lots along the southern border and along Cyprus Blue Cypress Lane, you know, aren't adjacent to this buffer. And so it was a a way to have an effect on a small portion of the buffer versus touching the entire thing.

It seems to me, and I know Miss Yakies disagrees with me, but that it is only, not only because, but primarily because there is an interest of three interested parties, that it's more pronounced. But I feel that I sense that I think both, all parties are telling us that they don't feel that they can work things out. And they want a decision, as much as we wanted to give them that opportunity. I'm comfortable going with Tim's interpretation that, by the book, not every single one of these conditions have to be met exactly, because I am thinking in terms of, well, now we know that there's a fence on the other side and the green screen. But I'm just thinking in terms of, so we've got pools of 37 feet, so maybe 70 feet worth reduced bufferedge by five feet only.

You know what I mean? I don't believe that that's going to set a precedence for all the other development, or anywhere in Wellington. I don't think developers I do not believe well, I'm sure there are some developers over history of time have built it, you know, and then just asked for variances later. But I don't believe that that was their intention. So I'm comfortable recommending an approval for

Are you moving to approve? You're not a recommending body on this. This is Yeah, your

my decision only for me. Recommend that we approve, and I recommend approval. Are

you making that motion?

I am. I'm just going to make it this Sorry, it's a long one.

GREGORY Are you adding anything to it with respect to some of the representations that have been made by

GREGORY I honestly still believe that I really wish I'm concerned that there's a little bit of, you know, they just kind of want to make a point and make it difficult. And I really I'm sorry that that's just my feeling. It's I'm just thinking in terms of 80 feet and five foot less. And I understand there's not always going to be horses over on that side of the fence, and there's not always going to be wild parties on the other side. The construction is going to take as long as the construction takes.

And it's residential next to the EOZD and commercial equestrian. I don't think any future developer is going to go in there and try to purposely get away with a scenario like this. I think this is a very unique scenario. And I think that they've offered to forget about the Lot 12. I believe it's Lot 12, since we're only talking about 14 And 13 now. I really wish that they would have agreed for extra time, but I do recommend approval, or I would What is your

through approval. Is your motion?

Can I make some comments before the

motion? Yes, my motion is that we approve, and I'm looking for the number.

Well, Ms. Yakas wanted to make No,

that's some

comments. Fine. She could make her comments,

I'm just looking for the

There are several criteria. One of them, you know, which we've discussed a lot, is that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. I think that they do. But there are also other criteria that I don't think have been met here. One of the criteria is that the literal interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the LDR would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the LDR, and would create an unnecessary and undue hardship.

There is no unnecessary and undue hardship by denying the variance. They have built 5,000 square foot homes. The only thing they can't do is build a pool to the size and dimensions that they want to build a pool to. That's not an unnecessary and undue hardship. So I don't think that that factor is met either.

And another factor is that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Again, I don't think that just having a certain size of pool, or even a pool at all, means that that has to be a reasonable use. That's the only reasonable use of the property. They are building large homes in a beautiful community. They will have reasonable use of the property. Denying the variance does not deprive them of that. So I don't think they've met with that factor either. So I think it goes beyond just one factor that they don't comply with. I think there are at least three factors that they don't comply with here.

MS. Fair enough. I did suggest the lap pool, and I can identify some pavers that could be reduced. And that's where it might end up if this doesn't go through. But I'm willing to say that I approve the resolution PZAB2026-one for the Track B of Blue Cypress landscape buffer variance.

If I may, just for clarification, one, does that include the conditions that have been recommended? And if so, the dimension would be five feet, not seven and a half feet.

Yeah, that's what I understood, five feet. Reduce to feet. Yes, absolutely. And then can you detail the other?

Reduce feet. Reduce to 10 feet, sorry.

Right. Just for the length of the pools. Lots of lots thirteen and fourteen. Yes. And whatever engineering says they have to do with

Are we including any of the additional landscaping that was discussed or

Well, I do want to see a berm. Yeah. I want that berm in there. And I want the they are providing for nine sixty one square feet of additional landscaping. Not there. Quantity. Yeah. Was there any specific addition well, recommendation for the lots of the landscaping, the additional landscaping, I think that's fine on each lot.

Well, would be specific just for the landscape buffer, and we were discussing me and Tim were discussing possibly an additional 30% of landscaping, which is something that we apply to PUD's. So wait.

So an additional condition would be that you're not it doesn't allow a reduction. In fact, it would require 30% additional landscaping material Okay. Above the requirement to achieve that denser landscaping that was mentioned.

Right. Well, yes, I do. And I think they, yes. They

are you making that part of your motion?

Are you

making that part of your motion?

Yes.

Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. All those in favor? Aye.

All

those opposed?

Nay.

Aye. Nay. Yes.

Okay. Fails.

So that

There you have it.

I guess motion fails. And that's it.

So actually, we did you prepare a separate resolution for denying the variance? Yes. Okay. I would recommend has that been provided?

That has not. Okay.

Lori, does that need to be with or without prejudice?

No. Okay. It's deemed without prejudice if there's no specifying. I think you need to provide copies to the board so that they can approve the denial based on their two to two vote. Right? So they can approve the resolution denying. In other words, you prepared two resolutions, one approving and one denying.

Sure. But aren't we going to fall into the same quandary of a failed motion to deny? Because at

two That's to the two same recount.

Right. So I think the motion just fails, and a failed motion equals a denial. I don't know that unlike a motion to approve being fully denied. So if it had been a three to one or four to zero, then yes, I would say

So then the resolution that's going to be executed will be the resolution denying the variance, correct, that you've prepared?

Yes. You won't get approval for it So

then we have to make a motion to deny the variance?

I think you do. I mean, you know, although you have denied the variance. So then CHRISTIAN

Motion to deny the variance.

Yeah. Somebody?

Because it's already been denied, but motion to deny the variance.

CHRISTIAN So if we make a motion to deny the variance, and it's two to two again.

Well, it's not going to

be because

he just made the motion. Somebody

second it, please.

Second. Didn't hear it.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear it.

A motion to deny the variance.

Oh, and you seconded it? Yes. Okay.

All in favor of denial of the variance.

So does that vote become the official vote?

I'm sorry?

Does that vote become the official vote?

Yes. Because they we need to provide a written denial to the applicant. And so that becomes the written, that becomes the motion that supports the written denial. So they can

I think it would also be useful to get a consensus on whether those seven criteria have to be met? Whatever that standard is, it's a lot to put on a board to be told, well, it could still be up you know what I mean? It would just be nice to know what we're working with.

That's something we can address in our code or in our development review manual.

Well, again, I think, if I may, the issue is that the board still has to take all of the evidence into consideration. And while the staff report may tell you that they don't meet all seven,

you may feel

that the applicant is represented that they do. And so it's a function of your consideration of the evidence presented and whether or not they

meet Yes, but in this the case, the applicant acknowledged that they had Understood. The ability to

Again, I think we can go down the rabbit hole of variances. There are a number of variances that are approved that don't meet all the standards. However, if you find any that have been challenged and have gone through the court system, the courts have determined that the challenge is upheld because they didn't

It would just be nice if, you know, before we go through this process that there could be other things that, you know, could be done to perhaps stave us being in this situation like, I don't saying, go talk to your neighbors or something. Because I can't even call Code and make a complaint about a neighbor. They're not going to do I have to talk to the neighbor first, you know what I mean, before Code will go out there and knock on doors and stuff. I know that the village wants to encourage people to, you know

Well, staff will address the issue that you've raised. Yes. So let's move forward with the agenda.

Are any other comments from staff?

No, sir.

Okay. Then any other comments from the Board?

Does he sign this? Yeah. Okay.

In that case, we're adjourned.

Thank you. Thank you.