Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, mics are live. I'll call the meeting to order. Can I have a roll call, please?

Yes.

Chair Wilson.

I am here.

Mr. Hale. Here. Ms. Sherberg. Here. Mr. McKeon.

Here.

Ms. Fresca. Here. Mr. Jasper.

Here.

And Mr. Ferlaughey.

Here. Congratulations. We all made it first time in a while. Okay, we have a set of minutes from the June 2nd 2026 regular meeting and do I have a motion, please.

I move as to prove the minutes as submitted.

We have a motion to approve by Mister Jasper to have a second Mister chairman has 2nd of ocean and a second by Mister Hale. Any further discussion. Seeing none all in favor say aye aye all opposed the same. And the motion passes. Do we have anyone signed up for general audience participation?

No, not for general.

Okay, thank you. That brings us to our first public hearing. Variance petition number 26-20VZ, 201, the Esplanade. The staff is Brittany Smith. The agent is Jackson Boone. The owner is Edward Hines. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. I do have a memorandum to read. This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on June 20th, 2026, as required by the city of Venice land development code. Proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. And with that, I'll open the public hearing. And could I have the attorney question the board, please?

Anyone has a possible conflict of interest, please indicate that at this time. None. If you've had any ex parte communications that are not presently part of the record, please state what those are.

Site visit.

Site visit. Site visit.

Site visit only.

Site visit only.

Site visit only.

None. Thank you.

Okay. And you'll confirm that all the speaker cards have been signed. Okay. And with that, we have Brittany. Welcome.

Good afternoon. So we're here today to talk about variance petition number 2620BZ, 201 Esplanade South. The owner is Mr. Edward Hines and the agent is Jackson Boone, Boone Law Firm. The request is for a variance to Chapter 89, Section 2.11 for construction or excavation seaward of the Gulf Beach setback line and Chapter 87, Section 3.1.8.F2 for the visibility triangle for the construction of a perimeter wall. The parcel size is approximately 0.558 acres with the future land use of low density residential, the zoning of RSF2 and conservation. This is an aerial overview of the property. Project description, the applicant is again requesting relief for construction seaward of the Gulf Beach setback line, which is 2.11.4.A. And the applicant is requesting also a variance from the visibility triangle. The property owner previously sought similar relief in a hearing with you on November 4th, 2025. At that time, the request was denied, finding that the variance was not the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. Following the denial, the property owner worked with project consultants to evaluate alternative design options for the privacy wall. And this is why the proposal is in front of you today. These are some current site photos taken roughly about three weeks ago, right before the public notice signs went out. This is a future land use map of the property showing its low density residential near open space functional and high density residential. And here is the zoning map showing that RSF 2 zoning with RMF 4 across Granada and Recreation or Venice Beach is over there to the northwest with conservation right across the street to the west. Now here you'll see a picture of the prior site plan. and the current updated site plan. You'll notice that the fence previously had been square up to the property line and now it has a rounded edge to it. And then here is the graphic for the visibility triangle request here showing the visibility triangle going from the actual intersection And then the right-of-way that is not yet developed is what they're actually requesting, those 10 feet here on the corner. These are your decision criteria for the variance. I won't read them all to you, but if you want to give them a look over. And then based on the information submitted by the applicant, the staff report and testimony provided during the public hearing, staff believes there is sufficient information on the record to allow Planning Commission to take action on petition 2620VZ. Are there any questions for me? Mm-hm.

good afternoon for the record my name is Jackson Boone attorney at the Boone law firm here in Venice agent for the applicant and property owner mr. Edward Hens I'm joined here today by mr. Hens Sam Beebe with Beebe design studios who is part of the and what I'll call the first application and Jim Collins planner with our firm I put together a PowerPoint presentation and And knowing that this came back before you all in November and with Brittany doing the staff report, there are some duplicative high points that I'll hit at the beginning of the presentation. But then what you'll see is, Part of me understanding, okay, where did we start and how did we get here today? Taking a deeper dive, actually looking at the property and the GBSL regulations themselves. Hopefully to make sense of we have this regulation, we have this property, how can we make those two coexist? And you'll see that when I get into my presentation. So here, let me start. General property information, as Brittany stated, of note it's about you know a little over half an acre zonings uh residential single family two not single family four it was platted in the 1925 venice gulf view section plat that's where the famous john nolan plan uh for the city comes from and the plat created the esplanade right-of-way which separates the lot to the east from the beach area to the west As you can see here with the aerial the property you're well aware there's the what I call the southern Venice Beach public access and parking lot just to the northwest of the property and there also is the parallel parking that has been striped by the city there on the northern side of the lot along Granada and it actually moves farther to the east so you have that additional beach parking that overflows impacting this property and the other similarly situated properties Going to the east. Taking you back to November last year, here was the what I'll call the first plan where the proposal was to obtain relief from the Gulf Beach setback line regulations in order to simply square off the wall at the northwestern property corner. It was determined that the proposed variance was not the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property, and it was denied. As Brittany said, after the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant reconvened with the project consultants, they engaged our firms, and we went to task to figure out what are our other options here and what are the actual regulations we're dealing with. As you've seen in our narrative with staff during the meetings we held with them once we decided we were going to move forward with a new variance effort, it was discovered that we needed to also obtain relief from the visibility triangle. That is an additional variance request we have with this application. I will touch on that later in my presentation, but I believe it's very straightforward in how we can explain that to you. That being said, we do have two requests. We have the relief from the Chapter 89 Section 214, Gulf Beach setback line regulations. I'll refer to that as GBSL. Hopefully you all can carry on. Let me know if you need me to clarify. And then we have relief from the Chapter 87, Section 318F2, dimension requirements for visibility triangles at corner lots. So touching on the Gulf Beach setback line, the GBSL variance request. Again, this was the first plan. This was in front of you in November. Because of that denial, the wall was redesigned to pull back away from the property corner and run in a southwest to northeast direction. This reduces the amount of the variance requested to the GBSL. And at its maximum, the wall extends 13 feet 8 inches seaward of the GBSL. similar to in November where there was a accompanying elevation plan we have the elevation plan here it's essentially the same you have a three-foot concrete what I'll call kind of base half of the wall with a upper three-foot metal railing as shown here on the exhibit submitted with our application materials Viewing the site as it exists today, for those of you that did the site visits, you'll see there's a gap, right? So the question is, you're filling the gap, essentially. What I've done here is I've circled in blue the existing posts where that gap is created, and you can see how the wall is designed to bridge the gap and fill it in. This was discussed in the November hearing. The one thing that immediately jumps out to you, and I've already referred to it, is, okay, this property, where is it located? How is that unique? Well, it is one of the handful, I believe. There's one lot just to the north of here where the Grazier parking lot is. That's a single family lot that's directly adjacent to beach parking, whether that's exactly, that's what the majority of the people using the Grazier lot park for, for beach access. This is the only lot in the city that is situated exactly like this here. That's apparent. It jumps out to you. That was discussed with the beach access and with the parking lot and with the parallel parking for beachgoers. That brings people to the property throughout the year, certainly peaks during the major holidays, but that's people going to the beach, whether they're in a car, they're in a golf cart, that's people riding their bikes to the beach, that's people walking their dogs who live in the neighborhood, people jogging, exercising, all sorts of things. That to me, that's the easy apparent, okay, why this is unique and okay, why would the property owner seek to enclose their property with a privacy wall? However, after watching the video of the November hearing, I thought it would be important to provide additional information concerning this property and really get into, okay, what is the GBSL and how are we regulating it in order to make sense of this request in relation to other requests that have come before you. So this is a phone photo I took on the 4th of July, so you could accuse me of cherry-picking, but this shows Beach, the parking there along the parallel spots there in Granada, and what I figured, which is human nature, because parking that close to the beach is a premium, even though the parallel spots are marked the red car you're always going to have somebody park right behind that westernmost spot so that you'll see this again when i mention the visibility triangle but it's just human nature that there will be as many cars as people can park along the granada road directly adjacent to this property also where this blue and red car are directly where mr hens would like to fill in the gap for his privacy wall so getting back into the historical aspect having an understanding of the property i've already mentioned that the property was platted as part of the 1925 venice golf view plat but zooming in here it's block 28 lot 7 and so when this plat was established and recorded in 1925 you can see what at the time was platted also as that 70 foot wide esplanade right away and again what that does is that runs between the platted areas to the east and then the beach property not included in the plat to the west so this goes all the way back to the establishment of the city of how this property was per the plat split off from the beach and we have this natural improved divider of the esplanade right away The Esplanade South serves as the vehicular and pedestrian access for residential lots located south of the property. If you're familiar with this area, you will see that vehicles can only travel north. They can't travel south. But that's how these lots 654321 there they use Ocala Street and then they access their property via the Esplanade and they exit going to the north. Um Pulling historical imagery, so this is very poor quality. However, this is a 1948 aerial photo. This is as far back as you can go to get legible copies on the GIS. You can see that at the intersection, and what I've done is I've marked it with a small X. You can already see the Esplanade right-of-way being improved. You can see that faint line. This photo then, this goes to 1974. showing a more well-established, a broader improved but unpaved right-of-way on the Esplanade. This here was four years prior to the county's adoption of the Gulf Beach setback line regulations in 1978. What these aerials demonstrate is that, as I've already said, the Esplanade has been established as this historical separation between residential lots to the east and beach property to the west. Here, this is an aerial from 1986. I think this does a good job of showing the esplanade in a more recent condition, and it also shows now I've introduced the blue line, which is the Gulf Beach setback line. The orange line all the way to the east is the coastal construction control line, which does not impact this property. And then what you can see here all the way to the west, the yellow boundary along those parcels, which looks to be the city boundary, that is in fact actually the erosion control line. And what that does is that separates beach property of the state from private property, whether privately held by Mr. Hens or the Venice Beach property to the north, it separates that, and that's for purposes of beach renourishment. This aerial here provides a clear delineation of the ECL established in 1993, where it separates this, again, public and private beachfront area. What stands out to me in this aerial is that the more recently established ECL actually jogs west here, but the older GBSL jogs to the northeast. why that is how it is it's the ECL is mapped to reflect the current beach conditions whereas the Gulf Beach setback line was established in 1978 and it stayed as it has it's not been updated as far as the line depiction so diving deeper into the Gulf Beach line Gulf Beach setback line again that was adopted by the county in 1978 it had a very important purpose regulate development activities along the gulf front areas of the unincorporated county in order to prevent erosion and impacting beach habitat and having aesthetic uh you know impacts on the community at large right so today it's one of the numerous lines you'll see on a survey if you have beachfront property you can see the ec you can see the gbsl you can see the coastal construction control line i've referenced you can also see the ecl for properties here in the city of venice where it exists This here, this is the northern half of the island showing the run of the GBSL in blue, and it starts at Tarpon Center Drive all the way at the South Jetty, and then it runs all the way down. I cut it off before it gets to Casperson's, but you can see as it runs all the way down through Golden Beach, down by Maxine Barrett Park, past the airport, past Lake Venice and then down to Casperson's Beach. This line runs the entire length of the island. It runs in a consistent northwest to southeast bearing. However, there is one small, unique movement of the Gulf Beach setback line on the island where it makes an abrupt and sharp jog to the northeast. This isolated, sharp northeastern jog is the only jog the GBSL makes on the island, and unfortunately for Mr. Hens, he's the only property owner impacted by that jog on the island. Frankly, it indiscriminately clips the corner of his property. It's unclear why the Gulf Beach setback line makes this northeastern jog at this specific location aside from a need to move this setback line slightly to the east before continuing with its northwestern trajectory for the remainder of the island of Venice. We spoke, our team spoke with county staff about this and if they had any idea why and they simply said they didn't and they didn't know whether it would be a mapping error or if that's just where the surveyor at the time decided to make that jog in line. As such, we believe the indiscriminate clipping could attribute to a mapping error by the surveyor establishing the line at the time in 1978, frankly and solely because the right-of-way of the intersection of the Esplanade and the Granada is approximately 20 feet away, where this line can make that same movement without impacting any private property. So I can't tell you with certainty it's a mapping error, but it definitely raises the question in my mind why such a clip of this property would occur when they could have made that same movement 20 feet to the northwest without making any impact on private property. The unique impact on the property by the GBSL is compounded by the fact that the property has been platted, has been a platted single-family lot separated from the beach area by an improved right-of-way, the Esplanade, prior to the establishment of the Gulf Beach setback line. So now we get into the city's Gulf Beach setback line regulations and the county's Gulf Beach setback line regulations. So the city's Gulf Beach setback line regulations are derived from the counties and the purpose and intent of the city's GBSL regulations are drafted to mirror the county's purpose intent of their coastal setback code, identifying the same public purposes the regulations are designed to protect. The public purposes include protection from coastal flooding and erosion, minimizing public expenditures for flooding and erosion control measures and in response, public expenditures for flood and erosion control measures and in response to natural disasters causing these conditions, ensuring public beach access, protecting beach habitat and protecting the economical, recreational and aesthetic value of coastal property, both for property owners and the public at large. Viewing the proposed privacy wall in comparison with these stated purposes, there is no impact to erosion or flooding, public expenditures, beach access, or protected beach habitat, no increased susceptibility of erosion to adjacent property, and it will help retain the aesthetic and economical value for the property owner without impacting the recreational economic and aesthetic values of the other nearby property owners or the general public at large. When comparing the city's GBSL regulations to the county's coastal setback code and their specific GBSL regulations therein, I found it interesting that the city's GBSL regulations span two pages. The county's GBSL regulations span seven pages within 23 pages of the county's coastal setback code. Within the broader framework of the county's GBSL regulations is a noticeable distinction where there is an avenue for certain proposed improvements to obtain administrative written conditioned exception approvals rather than having to go through a variance process, providing a multi layered approach rather than a one size fits all approach, which is what the city system utilizes. These improvements which qualify for administrative approvals must not impact protected beach habitat, listed species, beach access, and there are 15 categories of proposed improvements that qualify, meaning it's not just the small limited scope. The county's contemplated all the way up to 15 distinct categories where an administrative approval could be obtained. One of these categories includes professionally engineered breakaway privacy walls that do not impact dune, beach, or coastal hammock habitat and that do not impact beach access. Our project, so what this leads to, is our project, if proposed in unincorporated Sarasota County, would qualify for an administrative approval as this is a professionally engineered breakaway privacy wall designed to give way and break apart at specific wave pressure in the event of a flooding event There's no proposed impact to dune, beach, or coastal hammock habitat or lateral beach access. Part of me, you can tell I've done a deep dive here. Part of my deep dive also included looking at the GBSL from Longboat Key all the way down to Manasota Key. In that work, what I found, I wanted to identify places where I could see similar jogs and how those jurisdictions handled it. I found two that I thought were notable, but for purposes of showing this in the presentation, I limited it down to one. The first one I found, though, was on Longboat Key, or not Longboat Key, on Lido Key, just north of where St. Armand's is. That property, it's in the City of Sarasota's jurisdiction. The City of Sarasota has their own coastal island overlay zoning scheme and they have their own waterfront property standards. They do not recognize the Gulf Beach setback line for their coastal regulations. It's there, the line is there, it's been mapped, but they handle it in their own way with their own regulations. Then I checked Longboat Key. There are a handful of properties there, particularly at the northern end where there's a small, sharp northeastern jog. Similar to Lido Key, Longboat Key does not utilize the Gulf Beach setback line regulations. They have their own regulations in place. This led me to this Point of Rocks property. This is how I started to travel farther north. There wasn't really anything applicable on Casey Key, so then I got to Siesta Key and I came across this jog. So this is a little different in the sense that we have an actual, what I'll call a property feature that abuts going farther west into the property and then swoops back a little bit in. farther east where the beach is. However, this is a sharp jog of a line and I thought this would be good to analyze. This proposal involved tearing down in this the lot that you can see the wider lot to the bottom if you can see my cursor A property owner here proposed tearing down those two single-family homes and building a new single-family residence. They had to apply for a variance through the county's process to the GBSL regulations. It went to the county commissioners and it was approved. And this is the building there under construction, right? So markedly different than what previously existed. But looking into it further, what I thought was interesting is that the county has its own specific variance decision criteria for coastal setback in GBSL variance requests. Distinct from the city where there's just the broad variance criteria. So the county has a tailored set of variance criteria for these requests that meet the code in order to have a more efficient processing of these requests. so taking all of these factors into consideration i think it's interesting here that we have the city's version of the gulf beach setback line regulations however it's very different from how the county implements it and in a manner that actually impacts the property owner negatively the material impact i would say in my opinion so this the the variance request itself all of the conditions that are attributable to this are based upon the unique aspect of the line and the property itself. It's not created by the property owner. And frankly, I think it would be reasonable for the property owner to use all of the property here that's platted. However, we have reduced the variance request to bring a curved, you can call it a rounding feature of the wall here in order to reduce the request and produce the minimum variance necessary for reasonable use of the property. It's now moving along to the visibility triangle. This is the exhibit that Brittany showed you. What she was trying to communicate is that what we noticed is that the visibility triangle is implemented at the corner of the property, whereas here the right of way corner, the curb corner, is much farther away. And so what this exhibit shows is what the required visibility triangle would be if placed at the curb corner and not at the corner of the property itself. You can see if you're looking, this bush here, these sea grapes, sea oats, block the view if you were looking through what the visibility triangle would be on the property, and in turn, the blue car here blocks the view. This is if you're looking at the visibility corner of the property itself. While some of the vegetation in the corner area in the right-of-way has been able to be removed in place with low-growing landscaping such as flowers, it's our understanding that these sea oats cannot be removed. If you implemented the visibility triangle on the property, it wouldn't have the intended impact. Also, what we found was interesting is when you look at the westernmost parallel parking space marked by the city on Granada, which would be the westernmost one here in pink outlined in red, That appears to be March from if you put the visibility triangle at the curb just as we did in our exhibit rather than from the property. We think this request makes all the sense in the world. Planning staff has no issues with it. We have no knowledge of any other staff departments having issues with it. This certainly is just a unique aspect of the property. the particular physical surroundings and condition, the way the extended right-of-way curb at Granada and the Esplanade has the existing vegetation, which we can't remove if we want to. Maybe the city could try. Frankly, I don't know if they can, depending on the species. They make enforcement of the applicable visibility triangle regulations on the property an unnecessary hardship, and implementing that on the property as required would have no material impact or benefit to the public safety, which is what those regulations seek to provide. So altogether, the requested variance is seeking relief from Chapter 89, Section 2114, and Chapter 87, Section 318F2 are compliant with the Section 113 3A variance criteria and all other applicable sections of the land development regulations. They are consistent with the comprehensive plan. We respectfully request your approval, and I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. We have questions for Mr. Bowen. Mr. Hale.

Other than aesthetic reasons, why wasn't the wall just built between the two existing posts right along the line that we're talking about? We could have done that. You don't need a variance. You don't need anything. You're following all the rules. Is there a reason that you want to extend it? I agree, aesthetically, it probably looks nice, but I don't see it as necessary. I'm sorry.

And certainly, Mr. Hale, you made that opinion well known at the November hearing. I think if you can look at your screen, what you see is this this Gulf Beach setback line, which this is our only avenue in order to seek relief from this variance hearing process. That's, I mean, I refer to it as a clip of a corner, but if I purchased the property and was living there and I was told, all right, you just give that up to the right of way, I would not say that is immaterial as far as the impact on my property. We think where the wall is designed meets that in a halfway manner. I mean, frankly, my opinion would be that you could allow the wall to be built at the property corner because where the existing vegetation is, that essentially blocks the wall from the view of the public. However, what it does is it helps provide that enclosure from the adjacent beach parking along Granada and the nearby parking lot at the Venice public beach access. So I certainly understand. And that's an element of these variance hearings. You get into the question of what is the minimum variance necessary? That's a very subjective answer in all variance requests.

Chairman, I have one more, if I may. Why was this variance not asked for at the beginning of all this construction? That line's been there forever. It's not a surprise to anybody. And we get to the point where now the house is built and we're kind of finishing up details and we bring it up. It seems to me a logical time to have brought that up was before, when the architect was laying out the house, you could have worked around this problem. If we ask for it late enough, I'm sure they'll give it to us.

I would not say that's the tactic being utilized. I was not involved in the efforts of constructing the house or laying it out, but I know Mr. Hardy and I know that's not a strategy he would seek to employ with you all. Frankly, this could be just something where the vast amount of work from an architect, specifically with the homes here, with the FDEP and FEMA requirements, the wall is the wall right the homeowner what they're thinking about is how can you design a house that i like and then how soon can you get it built properly and get it permitted i don't want to say this was left to the wayside because i wasn't involved in any of that thinking but in my opinion if i was faced with this i would be looking at getting my house designed and permitted and built and then the fence would be or the wall would be a second step of that equation

Just following up on Mr. Hale because I had similar thoughts. There's two of our criteria that we have as decision criteria. One is it can't be a mere inconvenience and I'm looking at how this is a true hardship and the other one is it can't be a problem of the Petitioners own making and as was just alluded to The building of the house as it was designed created the problem in a sense, you know, I mean, so How do we how do you answer that where we get around that criteria?

So The the design of the house certainly is creates an impact on the property in the layout of the wall. It does, there's no hiding behind that or refuting that. But in the instance of analyzing variance requests, I know there have been some variance requests where the people have come forward with an improvement that they're seeking to replace an improvement and they move it forward. and that variance has been improved. So that in itself is increasing the amount being requested. There's no, These variances, they're a very unique animal, right? And that's part of my presentation getting into this is the only avenue we have for something like this. The Farley House, which I was involved with, we got a variance to the Gulf Beach setback line in order to build a residential component and a pool. seaward of the Gulf Beach setback line. That was entirely at their making, but I think that's viewed differently because that's a bigger project in scope rather than this portion of the wall. And you all are certainly entitled to your opinion. You all are gonna decide how you want to, But I think in the bigger picture of this here, this is just this this portion of the wall is in a tough spot. It came back in front of you. We all received your direction. We came back with a proposal to try to meet what you all directed to, whether or not some of you and I'm sure you have every right to say, I just don't believe you meet the criteria. I'm not going to prove it. There's nothing wrong with that. That's your opinion. You have that ability as a planning commissioner. But for the property owner, for them not to just give off however much of a portion of their property is there, there's a reason you can request relief from this 1978 regulation that hasn't been modified since. And again, if we were in the county, this standard, this setback line is to protect beach habitat, to prevent erosion. prevent public expenditures on erosion and flooding mitigation. None of that is in play here. This is just what I consider a zombie line on the property that we do recognize we have to come in front of you all to seek relief from and and i i think it really is just as simple as that the goal here is to try to create a design that meets in the middle that hopefully could get approved thank you appreciate that mr flaggy yeah if we could just uh i just want to talk about the visibility triangle for a little bit what is

What would you say the function of a visibility triangle is? First of all, just the most basic why.

Provide public safety benefit at an intersection in order for vehicles to be able to see other vehicles or pedestrians on the roadway.

And based on that, I'm sure at some point some pretty fancy study was done to determine that 20 feet was like the magic, like that's the maximum safety or something, and now we're cutting it down to 10. Are we, I'm just, I'm going to ensure that that intersection, because the intersection is kind of goofy. It really is. So that we're maintaining the safety.

Yes, sir. And this exhibit here, this shows the the 20 feet. So what would be the full visibility triangle if you actually implement it at the curb corner? It fits. What we're requesting relief from is that the code would require us to take this blue hatched area and slide it to match our corner as if we're playing Tetris at the property line. So this was, if you were looking from the esplanade, so you're not even at the stop sign where you can make a vehicular movement or if you're walking or if you're on a bike, this is where the visibility triangle regulations are being implemented per the code. You're not even aware you can make any sort of vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle movement onto Granada or travel north.

So in this photo, the existing wall that we see there, that's where it is and that's where it remains.

It's essentially, in my opinion, looking straight over this sea grape, sea oat bush to the northeast, and this blue car here is right there on the other side. So you can kind of see how there's where the visibility regulation is implemented. However, look all the way to the right where the do not enter signage is. That's near the curb, the actual corner. And keep in mind, too, this is not a full intersection. In Granada, you can only exit, and you can't enter. So it has a restricted vehicle movement to where... The people that are leaving on a vehicle because of the beach parking lot here are basically coming to a stop here to see if anybody's pulling out of the parking lot and then you look and see if anybody's at the stop sign at Granada and then you either go straight or you turn right on to Granada.

Yeah, I can appreciate that. It was cherry-picking, that photo during 4th of July. But it seems like we should get rid of that one parking spot at the end. That could be a solution to some problems there. But people will park. Anybody who lives on the island knows that they will park just about anywhere. The holiday parade is another issue. So it's something that we're all kind of used to. Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr. Bowen?

Yes.

Thank you. The vegetation that is impacting the visibility today is that city of Venice vegetation or is that the homeowners vegetation?

That is the city of Venice in the right of way.

So one solution would be the city should maintain that to avoid any potential visibility problems.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Yes, I would like to ask a question. If we could take a look at the slide you had that shows the jog in the GBSL.

Yes, ma'am. Stop me, does this work or do you want me to keep going?

I think it's the one that you just passed, this one here. And you made a very strong argument that we don't have any evidence as to why that line, takes that jog. And if we didn't have that little jog, this property would not be impacted by this regulation. And I find that to be a pretty strong argument for going along with what is being asked here.

If I may, so on this slide, so you're just suggesting, because that jog's got to happen somewhere, otherwise it affects all the properties to the north of that. Correct. You're suggesting if that happened perhaps right at the intersection, then everything that it was intended to do would be accomplished and it wouldn't affect the homeowner, correct?

Correct. Okay. Because it's got to happen somewhere. I mean, that jock has to happen. It's 20 feet away. That was a decision made in 1978 when this line was set, and it hasn't moved since.

Anything else? No. Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Boone. Thank you. Do we have anyone signed up for audience participation?

Yes, we have one speaker, Kathy McPherson, and she has five minutes.

I don't really want to speak. I live in the condos right now.

No, ma'am.

Ma'am, if you want to make a comment, you have to come up.

So, yes, I live at 109 Esplanade. And I live on the bottom floor, so I didn't have a great view of the ocean. But my view looking south is no more because of the pool that was built there. I took away my whole, what I could see. And I just really want to see how much more I'm going to lose by this new wall that's being built. So far, the house is fabulous. It's a beautiful, beautiful house. And the landscaping is beautiful. I just didn't want to lose any more view. But it looks like maybe that wall wouldn't, like maybe it's not going to be so bad. I don't know. Right now, the vegetation in the corner kind of blocks a lot of view, too. So I don't know. I just wanted to see what was happening around us. course up to you people but that's how I feel I know the people in the back lost a lot of you too because you know we used to have that little pink house there and now it's not a little pink house and you really have a lot to see over so but it is a beautiful house thank you we don't get to respond we just listen to you thank you and that's the only one there's no other okay um any additional staff comments none okay thank you

All right. Anything else you wish to say? All right. We're good there. With that, I'll close the public hearing. And do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Okay. Ms. Sherberg?

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony, and evidence provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission, sitting as a local planning agency, finds this petition corrects a bona fide staff error that led to a design or construction that does not comply with the LDRs and therefore moves to approve variance petition number 26-20VZ.

Chair, I think the staff has a comment.

Mr. Clark, can you have a clarification for us, please?

Yeah, I don't have a copy of the order procedure in front of me in the motion. But this is not a variance based on a staff error.

Roger, if you're looking for the sample motions, they always contain both as an option, since that's what is the ability of Planning Commission to determine.

Right, but they need to select one or the other. Correct. And not the staff error.

That would be up to the planning commissioner.

Staff error can refer to city or county, if I understand it correctly, and that's how I'm interpreting it. As though the county made this error some decades ago.

Okay, but in our code, staff error is specific to a staff error on our side that would not require the typical criteria to be complied with.

So it should not have been an option for us then.

I think as Kelly said, we always have the option in there.

The template. So that is part of our code. So that's why we put it there. I don't pre presume whether something may or may not be applicable. It's, it's provided for your consideration.

All right.

Yeah. That option was available. We would have indicated that.

okay and just i'll just add some commentary on top of what roger said so when this code with this version of bona fide staff error was included the intent of that time was to we didn't have that in there in previous versions of the code so the intent of that inclusion was to address things like staff overlooked a provision like they had a site plan and they approved it and then afterwards realized oh it actually doesn't mean a setback just for instance and so instead of making an applicant go through and prove each of our criteria which really would have been difficult it was an option to say well that was a bone that was a staff error staff made a mistake that led to some construction that doesn't comply with our code so that really was the intent of bona fide staff error again it's really planning commission's determination if you want that to believe it should be interpreted a different way that's why I can't say conclusively would never be applicable in this case but that was the intent of including that language in the code so in this particular case though it is not applicable and therefore I should amend my motion it is directed to staff error of our staff is really what it should be. I mean, I think it's an interesting perspective that you are bringing to the comment of a bona fide staff error.

Could we modify that to say to correct an error, not necessarily from our staff, but to correct a mapping error or whatever? I mean, I see what she's saying. She's looking at what happened years ago. We don't know why it happened. That's a pretty critical jog in this proceeding, so I understand where she's coming from. How do we get around that?

I'd have to, I mean, really what our code provides right now is just those two options. Either you don't meet one of the, you don't meet all of the criteria to grant a variance. Okay. Okay. Or you, it's a bona fide staff error. So that is kind of an A or B determination. I guess we can look at the general criteria for a variance and see if that's a way to address it. But there's not a C option. So I feel then that...

How about if I amend my motion? OK. All right. And in order to clarify it, let me just from scratch from read it again. Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as a local planning agency finds this petition meets each of the variance criteria. Section one point one three point three of the land development code. And therefore moves to approve Variance petition number 26-20BZ.

We have a motion to approve. Ms. Shulberg, do I have a second? Second. We have a second from Mr. McKeon. Do we have a motion and a second? Is there any further discussion?

Nope.

Seeing none, can we have a vote, please? Okay, and the motion carries unanimously. Thank you okay next up we have variance petition number 26 days, 23 the Z for 1200 drive the staff is the cold from late the agent is Jackson moon, the owner is just in gender. This is a quasi judicial hearing and I do have a rent a memorandum to read. This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on June 20th, 2026, as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office. And could I have the attorney question the board members on this one?

I was still lost in thought on the prior one. If anyone has any possible conflict of interest on this petition, please indicate that right now. Okay, seeing none. If you've had any ex parte communications that are not presently part of the record, please indicate those.

Site visit only.

None. None.

None.

None.

None.

None. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. And you'll confirm speakers are all signed up. And with that, Nicole.

all right welcome good afternoon thank you for the record nicole trembley senior planner for the city of venice and we are looking at 2623 vz for 412 hunter drive so familiar code section seeking relief or variance from 89-2.11.4a prohibiting construction seaward of the gulf beach setback line this is also to allow construction of a fence but of course each property is different so it's a different situation The owner is Justin Jenda, agent is Jackson Boone. Parcel size is about 0.6 acres, and it's got a feature land use of low density residential with a zoning of residential single family one. It is, of course, in the Island Neighborhood. So a little bit of description. This is a single family lot. They would like to fence the western side of the property beyond the Gulf Beach setback line by up to 110 feet. It would replace a previous, really a current fence that exists beyond the property line. They would take that down and replace it with one that is entirely on their property. There was a recent change in the property boundary, which the applicant noted caused their existing fence to be off the property. the fence is four foot black aluminum so an open to close design and here's the proposed plan you can see where it would be placed the gulf beach setback line is here in blue and so this is the extent of the um the fence that would be beyond it this is part of an existing concrete wall So here's the aerial map you can see kind of by the corner of Hunter Drive and Gulf Manor Drive right along the beach and you can see where the property line has changed. I'll show you an exhibit of different aerials and property lines in just a minute right here. So you can see in 2025 the parcel line was here. this is the current aerial so this is what the property looks like but that was their old property line this is still the current aerial with their new property line you see that little corner up here that's new and this is where the existing fence is And then just to show kind of how the property has changed over time, this is the 2025 aerial and the 2024. You can see it was kind of more natural here than hurricanes dumped a lot of sand on it. And then they have since added this sod and the new fence. So for existing conditions, I'll show some site photographs, future land use map, and the zoning map. So here's the site as it looks today. This line of bushes here lines a walkway to these condos here adjacent to the property. And then here's, as I mentioned, that existing fence that would be taken down and replaced with one entirely on their property. Future land use map shows that this is low density residential with high density residential to the north and the rest of the surroundings are also low. Corresponding zonings, RSF 1 and 2 for the low density and RMF 4 for the high density for those condos to the north. So for the planning analysis, we were really just looking at the decision criteria. You all are familiar with those, and we just talked about them in detail. But if you have questions or need to see them as you discuss, let me know. And so upon review of the petition and associated documents, land development codes, staff report and analysis, and testimony provided, we believe there will be sufficient information on the record to take action. Do you have any questions for me?

I have any questions, sir? Yes.

Nicole, thank you.

I have a question, though, and it's really a matter of the process, so to speak, and I may need some help from council on this, but I understand that this property and this fence in particular is before the magistrate right now and has been since about March of this year. So since March, the property owner has been alerted that they have built a fence without permission, Um, and I understand now it's not even on their property. So can you explain whether or not this request today before the planning commission is appropriate, given that this is also a case before the city's magistrate.

So my understanding is their magistrate hearing was set for last Wednesday and they did not have the hearing because they were scheduled for this hearing today. If they're able to resolve their issue through this variance, then their code case would go away as soon as they remove what's not on their property. they could have removed it sooner but that's how they're planning to resolve it they applied for this variance in on may 18th so i believe code enforcement gave them some time to get that application in process before they started having magistrate hearings or imposing fines things like that usually that's we allow people to try to remedy it

Okay. So this is with the magistrate's understanding and direction that this is the appropriate process to follow? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Any others? I just, just to kind of qualify again, some of what Ms. Shearberg brought up. When they say the previous fence, this is not a fence that's been out there for 40 years like we quite often see. We've had other things come before us where there's been existing situations, walls and so forth that have been there for years. This has been something that was put up relatively recently.

Yes, so if you look at the 2025 aerial, it doesn't appear to be there. The applicant may have more information on that, but I believe it is very recent.

So it's not something long established that's been there since, you know, their grandfathering in, if you will. This is something that was new and was done without being permitted. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for or no? Thank you Nicole.

Thank you.

Mr. Boone, you're back up.

All right. Again, for the record, Jackson Boone, attorney of the Boone Law Firm, agent for the applicant and property owner, Justin Junda. I'm joined here today by Mr. Junda, Sam Hardy with BB Design Studios, and Jim Collins, planner with our firm. I have another PowerPoint that I'll pull up here for us. But to Ms. Sherberg, your questions about the code enforcement process and where things stand. So in a nutshell, Mr. Junda, this fence was put up in 2025. I'll get to that in my presentation. Code enforcement notified him that he needed to obtain a permit from it. That was last year in 2025. The code enforcement action was closed out and intervening time took place. The code enforcement action was then reconvened back in late April. And once Mr. Junda then received a notice of violation, He engaged our firm to prepare a variance application, which is what the notice of violation directed him to do, which is what you need. You would need an approval of a variance here in order to get a permit for the fence. So we actually prepared that and submitted it within a week of receiving the notice of violation, which led us to getting here in front of you all. I was surprised it's gotten here this quickly. I think that's good. I thought this was going to get to you all in August. but that was part of the reason why the special magistrate last week decided to allow the case to be continued so we could get to you all so there could be action there's a request in order to obtain a variance in order to then permit the fence so that's the code enforcement aspect of this in a nutshell So just quick highlights for the property information. Again, as Nicole said, the property is located at 412 Hunter Drive. As you are aware, it's a beachfront lot. It has the RSF-1 zoning. It's approximately 0.6 acres and is immediately south of the Valencia condominiums, which are near the Alhambra Road beach access, which is north off-screen. The Valencia Condominiums property has the parking lot and drive area in the southeastern portion of their property, which you can see on this aerial. And that also includes an improved walkway to the beach. This walkway runs along the northern boundary of the property. Here you can see a photo looking from the west going east where the walkway is. And while it can be utilized by residents of the Valencia condominiums, it also serves as a convenient beach access for those folks that want to cut through the parking lot rather than go to the Alhambra beach access. And here's another angle with a photo looking east out toward, looking west from the east. Our variance request is relief from the Chapter 89, Section 2, 11-4, construction and excavation seaward of the GBSL regulations to allow for construction of a new privacy fence along the property boundaries seaward of the GBSL. As Nicole showed in her presentation, the property here, as in all properties along the beach, went through a substantial variation and change due to the hurricanes we had in 2024. So this was prior to the hurricanes in 2024. This shows all of the newly deposited sand in 2025. and then this is the 2026 aerial now you'll see there are other lines here i've done that on purpose the pink lines reflect what the parcel boundaries were up until april and the yellow lines reflect the new parcel boundaries based upon work our project team actually was doing with the property appraiser's office So in response to the change of condition with all this new sand, so this is 2024, hurricanes come, new sand is deposited. Mr. Junda wanted to sod a portion of his property going out towards the beach and frankly create a line with his fence that replicates what the Valencia condominiums wall has right there. um this wall or this this fence in the sod was erected to match the location of the adjacent wall and it runs along that same line after the installation of the sod in the fence and in anticipation of the city's beach renourishment project taking the summer taking place this summer we began discussions with the property appraiser's office regarding the location of the western property boundary As a result of these discussions, the property appraiser's office determined that the erosion control line, which is now what you see as the yellow line, the new western boundary of the property, rather than the mean high water line, which is the purple western line, serves as the western property boundary for this and all other similarly situated properties on the island. So what happened was the sod and the landscaping and the fence were put up, They were put up well within the property as they understood the boundaries to be based upon conversations. And the conversation started because of the construction equipment in the beach re-nourishment project. So understanding, okay, how much does this actually impact our property? The property appraiser's office determined that the true boundary is actually established by the erosion control line, which is where the yellow line is. So that's how you see this overlap and we get into, there's the fence, the portion of the fence is not located on the property. We've been in communication with multiple departments, planning, code enforcement. We've been in communication with FDEP. This is all, we're taking all of the steps we can take at this time in order to try to resolve these matters to obtain a permit for the fence we're proposed. The proposal is to, as I've stated, take the same fence, so four foot black aluminum fence, take it from where it's built, and essentially relocate it to the property boundaries. The red lines here demonstrate where the fence is proposed to go. That is there, the northern boundary, which runs along that shared walkway that you all previously saw in the drone photos. The red western boundary is there along the property line, and then the southern boundary is there along the southern property line as well. The farthest the proposed fence extends beyond the GBSL is 110 feet, which represents the distance to the southwest corner here. So even though it looks deceiving, this is actually the farthest seaward of the GBSL. whereas the western portion of the fence runs approximately 105 feet seaward of the GBSL and the northern portion of the fence extends an additional 61 feet essentially from the existing wall located beyond the GBSL. The proposed fence is compatible with the adjacent condominium property to the north where their beachfront wall serves to separate the beach area on their property from their sodded lawn and pool area. These improvements on the condominium property are farther seaward than the proposed fence, and therefore allow the fence to serve as a natural taper to the additional single-family properties to the south. The proposed fence is also consistent and compatible with the adjacent single-family property to the south, where an improved beach access and fence and deck are located seaward of the GBSL. Additionally, and also important, the proposed fence serves to enclose the pool located on the western side of the house and deter people on the public beach from trespassing on the property to use it. This is consistent with the requirements of the Residential Pool Safety Act, which is part of Florida law. The proposed variance does not conflict with the stated purpose and intent of the Chapter 89, Section 211 regulations, as there is no increased exposure to flooding or erosion from the Gulf of Mexico, no proposed increase for public expenditures for flood and erosion control measures, no potential increase for public expenditures for relief and restoration projects following natural disasters or gradual erosion, no impact to public beach access, no proposed impact to the beach, beachfront dune, beachfront bluff, or beachfront vegetation areas, creating no impact on shoreline stability, no increased susceptibility to erosion damage to adjacent property, and no impact to coastal property and coastal waters regarding their economic, recreational, and aesthetic values for both coastal property owners and the general public. So one key factor with this request in my opinion, is there's a distinct need to run the fence along the northern property boundary to be parallel with the walkway. The property owner has experienced people actually falling off of the wall. As you can see, it's higher than his property there to the south, and in order to enclose his property, prevent people from trespassing or people from injuring themselves inadvertently on his property, that leads to the desire to fence this. So that makes all the sense in the world to want to run the fence as far as you can to the west along that shared boundary where the walkway is. What that does is it leads to the question of, well, where do we tie in the western run of the fence? Because you have a northern post, in order to enclose the property, you need to have a western run of the fence as well. we believe the most logical and aesthetically pleasing option is to configure the fence as proposed where it runs along the western wall in a manner that is sought to replicate the run of the valencia condominiums keeping that essential north northeast bearing and and rather than having a tighter angle as you can see where the blue is here to run it closer back. So the blue in itself would represent a narrower run back to the property line but it would be disjointed from the consistent run you see at Valencia. This fence, again, as proposed, is farther back from the beach area than the Valencia condominiums, but it would meet it aesthetically looking at one consistent parallel run as far as being on the same bearing. We think that's logical. We think that's more aesthetically pleasing. That's why the proposal is right there at the western property boundary. The proposed fence beyond the GBSL is consistent with the adjacent properties. It is not injurious to the public or property within the vicinity. It does not impact protected beach or beachfront habitat. It is the minimum variance necessary to sufficiently enclose the property and swimming pool from the adjacent walkway to the north and from the public beach area to the west. The hardship creating the need to enclose the property from the existing adjacent walkway was not caused by the applicant, and the request is based upon the unique location of the property, not any condition which is personal to the applicant, and the requested relief is sought to construct the proposed fence allows for reasonable use and security of the property. The variance is compliant with the Section 113-3A variance criteria. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and we respectfully request your approval, and I'm available for any questions you all may have. Thank you.

Questions for Mr. Boone? Yes, Ms. Sherbert.

Thank you. Could you go back to your slide five?

Yes, ma'am.

That is where you're showing the walkway and the wall. Yeah. the walkway for the condos does that take them out to the beach the walkway on the right yes all right so the walkway on the right takes them out to the beach what we see on the left is a wall how high is that wall that that i do not know i could guess i would say it's it has to be anywhere from 12 to at least 18 inches plus So people are walking on that wall. It's what it sounded like.

Yes, ma'am. You can actually see in the bottom, you can see the circular pavers where the easiest thing would be to enclose that off, but that's not our property. I see. All right. And this picture was striking to me too because the railing put up by the condominiums is smart here, right? So it basically says, hey, we have a walkway farther north on our property Stay off the grass, stay on this walkway, get to the beach. Don't venture over to the wall, but there still is the ability for folks to access over the wall, and you can see that it still indicates that it's open and free for use by those pavers that exist.

And so the intent is to place a fence at the end of the condo's wall

wall basically as far as far west as it makes sense for the design of the fence for the property so if you look at the parcel boundary this one's probably easier to see because there's the sand the the ecl comes in and it clips and then it makes this western jog here to reflect the valencia property So there's a little bit of a, if you want to call it a fin or a protrusion there, but the proposal is not to run it all the way there and then come back and then make another movement. It's to run the fence to essentially one stopping point and then make a consistent run replicating that bearing of the Valencia wall down to the southern boundary.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Any others? Mr. Flocky.

The iron fence or the aluminum fence, it's been described as a security or privacy. It's more security than privacy because you can see through it, obviously. Is the intent to maintain that look or is there anything to ensure that it's not a wall at some point? Because a wall might change the whole dynamic or feel of that project.

When we get into a wall, first off, quick answer, The variance is specific to this fence. It's in the materials, it might even be on the face of the application form submitted. So it's specific to the four foot black aluminum fence. With this being beachfront property, walls have more stringent construction requirements in order to keep them up. This fence does not require the same level of to my understanding, structural support. So this is a less invasive proposal into enclosed. And so, and in my opinion too, security and privacy kind of both operate in the same sense. Security here is paramount and you could have the question of okay, you know you need to get a permit for this fence, why didn't you take it down before you got here to see if you could get an approval? But as the property owner, with their insurance requirements and all the liability they have with state law for enclosing pools, you need to make sure you are protecting yourself as the property owner and not having that as a latent hazard hanging out there to try to then get the appropriate approvals you would need to permit the fence.

And I couldn't tell from the photo. There's a gate, I'm assuming, for beach access on the western?

Yes, sir. There would have to be. There would be no intention to have to hop the fence back and forth. Mr. Junda has children that might enjoy that.

That's another opening to secure, I guess. All right. Very good. Thank you.

I do have a question. In that same slide that you were just showing us, the property to the south, is that also enclosed by a fence or no?

No, ma'am. There's no fence enclosure to the property to the south. The one thing I did notice in preparing for this is they do have that beach access with the walkway that's there. You can see at the southern portion of their property that's there. So that's an improvement. That's beyond the GBSL. My understanding is that's a beach access for owners within that general area in order to walk to the beach.

Okay.

And I just wanted to comment that I think it does look nice and make sense that the Valencia condominiums have kind of a continuous fence line, I'll call it, with this property. So it seems to make sense.

Anything else? No. Thank you, Mr. Boone. Do we have audience participation for this one?

Yes, we have two speakers signed up. The first is Nancy Woodley, and she has five minutes.

afternoon as an aside the valencia apartments wall was probably put in there in the early 1970s which was prior to the establishment of the gulf beach setback line as well as the erosion control line so i suspect it's under a pre-existing condition sorry my clock starts Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I'm here today not only as a resident who lives adjacent to the applicant's property, but also as a retired Venice City engineer and the project manager of the 2005 Beach Renourishment Project. My main concern is maintaining a healthy beach. which is critical for protecting upland structures during storm events and reducing flooding impacts from storm surge. A stable and healthy beach supports our tourism tube, which is a major economic force in our region. Our city has a 50-year contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. to refurbish or renourish the beach every 10 years. And this year is the fourth renourishment and is at approximate cost of $20 million, of which we pay only have to pay 10 to 20 percent because the Corps recognizes the inlet impact to our beach. The 2025 beach renourishment, if some of you have noticed, is currently underway. You see those big pieces of equipment on the beach and the barges floating offshore. I believe that inserting a fence and grass lawn in the beach profile compromises its function. It interferes with wind movement of sand, acts as a barrier to nesting sea turtles, And also that the lawn prevents the native seals and other native vegetation from populating the beach, such as the property you mentioned south of them. The applicant without a permit, put a fence and grass law on the beach, C word of the erosion control line, which is the demarcation line for the berms C word slope to the golf. It should be noted that this slope, known as a beach face, belongs to the public, and so applicants' fence and lawn are currently on public land. The variance request is to pull the fence, and presumably part of the lawn, back to just at the erosion control line, as was depicted in the drawing. This line usually sits atop the burn system where storm surge encounters the highest resistance point of the beach system. Wearing my engineer's hat, I recognize it would be unwise to grant this variance for fence and lawn placement on a part of the beach that will be buffeted by storm surge and coastal flooding. A more protected area is at the Sarasota County Golf Beach setback line, which has been referred to frequently today, which is the most protective line for maintaining a healthy beach. It also offers ample space for a fence to protect the pool and the house. The fence doesn't need to be 130 feet away from the pool to protect it. It also offers the property protection for the house and the pool and safety for the users. The applicant indicated he used the Valencia condominium wall to the north as his landmark. It should be noted that the wall was installed in the early 70s. when, as I mentioned earlier, Sarasota's Gulf Beach setback line didn't become into existence until 1978. The applicant purchased the property with full knowledge of the Sarasota County Gulf Beach setback line and the state coastal construction land. A state permit was issued to him for the period of March of 2023, but it expired in March of 2026. For construction of a new house on the site which he subsequently have to cut you off.

Thank you I appreciate it.

Next speaker is well Jennings.

Councilman, can you put your map up here again? The wall.

The area for that? Yeah. Sure. I'd like to point something out there.

Can you all see this? I'm a user of this wall. I have a beach. I'm sorry, I have a beach access. I needed beach access to this wall. That's how I get to the beach, how my kids get to the beach, etc. The pathway to the right is on the Valencia condominium property. The one to the left is the beach access. It's a wall. It's about two feet wide. My main reason for being here and my question is, the guy who wrecked this fence, At the end of the wall, the concrete wall, he's also built a fence across the wall. So I can't walk down the wall and get to the beach. It's kind of strange. I've got a picture of it. Can you put a picture of an iPhone on here? Okay, hold on. This is the wall you just looked at. When I walk down to the end of this wall, look what's there. I mean, I can't get to the beach. Now I can. There's about eight inches between the black fence and the white post. I can't get through eight inches very well anymore. So why did he close that off? That's my question. I'm not questioning the fence. I'm questioning he closed off the beach access.

I say we just listen. We don't interact with you. But I have some follow-up questions. Thank you for your comments.

Thanks.

Anyone else?

There are no further speakers.

Okay, thank you. Do we have it? Is that it?

We have you as the applicant of it, not for public comment.

Okay, it's part of rebuttal.

Okay, thank you. I was going to have a few additional staff questions. Should we do that first? Yes. Sir, you want to wait just a moment? I have some additional staff comments I want to have. Roger? A couple of things I just want to need clarification on. Do we have control over on somebody's property where they sod and where they don't? Is that something that has to get permitted?

For the record, Roger Clark, Planning and Zoning Director, I don't believe there's any permit required for something like that.

So if it's someone's property, we can't tell them they can't put sod down.

I don't believe so. I can tell you that the Department of Environmental Protection is really in control of the area that's seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. I don't know if they have any requirement. We typically would only be dealing with structures.

Also, we've heard about this wall. I'm confused now as to whose I understood that that property belonged to the condominium, so is the condominium telling the public that, yes, you can come walk along the top of our wall, or did they put a fence up on the end of it to say, no, we don't want you to do that?

i don't see any public access between these two properties it would seem that that's just a property line between two private properties and i would assume some members of the public see it as an access where they can get to the beach and probably shouldn't be doing that because we heard from mr boone that their concern was that people were walking on top of that wall it's all private problems they shouldn't be no i believe it's all private property from what i've seen i just wanted to get some clarification thank you

yes yes jasper roger as you and i think you clarified it by saying structure when we're talking about the sod but how about basically in lieu of a fence if you have like a four foot high shrubbery barrier hedge is that covered uh as a variance or is that permitted

So that's something we would be looking at. What the code says as far as the Gulf Beach SEPAC line is concerned is construction and excavation, and that would just be pertaining to structures.

Okay, thank you. Okay, and some rebuttal. Good afternoon, Council.

So I just wanted to address a couple of concerns from the residents. I do respect my fellow neighbors and things as such. And a couple of points were brought up. that wall used to it with the last storm it brought in a bunch of sand as you can see but that wall used to be taller than me at one point in time i'm six foot two we had for example which brought the first safety issue to our property that wall is actually built on my property it's not valencia's on the gulfs it's built on my property there is a pin in the wall that shows clearly my property bounds in the actual end of the wall closest to the northwest side of their wall. So part of their property, so they probably have about six inches of that wall. The remaining dumps everybody onto my property. So there is no actual way to get to the beach without trespassing on my property. And where this first started is there was a gentleman who came down that wall carrying things. You know, some people come down there with full carts of stuff, et cetera. One guy came down there, fell off an eight-foot wall, about broke his leg. I'm not sure what happened to him, quite frankly. And then he's starting to sue me. And I'm like, how does that make sense? Okay. So then another time, and my wife who's sitting in the back here can tell you, People access that as a public beach access. It is not a public beach access. And I know the lines very well. I happen to be the guy that figured out that the lines were incorrect and in dispute with the property appraisers. There was a guy that came through there, for example. I have small children. I have four small children. There was a guy just literally sitting in my backyard. He's like, oh, I thought this was public beach access. It's not public beach access. Valencia has somewhere in their charter, which they have never been able to show me or produce, and our attorneys have asked for it. I have attorneys here that have been cc'd, and nobody's ever been able to produce it, that there is deeded beach access. And I brought to you a paper here that shows you, because I contacted, for example, on Alhambra, there's a house right now for sale that's by the intersection of Hunter and Alhambra, that says deeded beach access on the sign. So I called and found out where the deeded beach access was, somewhere between a private house and a condo. Funny, because Valencia gave those people deeded beach access. 412 Hunter never gave them deeded beach access, and because they built the seawall inappropriately years ago on the property, now I'm paying the consequences for people not doing... THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES OF MAKING SURE THAT THINGS WERE PROPERLY BUILT AND ENFORCED. SO, YEAH, IT BECAME A SECURITY ISSUE IS WHERE IT STARTED. SECONDLY, I WANT TO ADDRESS THE SEA OATS ISSUES, RIGHT? THAT GOT BROUGHT UP IN PROPERTY. THERE IS NO CODE THAT SAYS I CAN'T, AS ROGER POINTED OUT. AND FURTHERMORE, WHEN WE HAD 10 CUBIC FEET OF NEW SAND THAT WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE EQUATION, That vegetation you saw there was more or less dead. It was past palum mixed in with a few other species. We had arborists come look at that. We took all the appropriate steps and all I did was match what was currently there and all I did was sprig it and water it to make sure that it was going and added a few pieces that I needed to make it match the rest of my yard because I had turf at one point in time. Turf's gone. and I made it match the original plans, which have the original Sea Island Pass, Sea, the original pass balance. As far as turtles go, I've been in correspondence with the FDEP. I've spoken to Ginger specifically about this ad nauseum, and I actually, every single time there's turtle nestings, I actually go out there because I end up with, prior, by the way, prior to any fence, I end up with about a hundred, my wife can tell you because my kids love fishing them out of the pool, I end up with about a hundred turtles in my pool almost every single year. So actually the fences actually deterred them. It's actually made it harder for them to go into my pool and they turn around and they go back home because what happens is they actually go to the condo first They can't get up that wall, so then they all start crawling into my yard. So I actually go put plastic barrier out there so it turns them and actually goes back. So all I'm saying is that I do appreciate the beach preservation. When I put up that fence for safety purposes, I was not aware where the boundary was because the city... And the county also did not know where the boundary was, hence the dispute that happened. And to be clear, I want to address the fact that, you know, this thing's been dragging on for a little bit. The reason why it's been dragging on, because it took me almost a year to figure out where these actual lines were, and they actually agreed that I was correct. So I've been very proactive in taking care of the measures. I've been very proactive in providing safety for my property for both my kids and people getting hurt, and there is no actual private beach access there down that wall. Valencia on the Gulf made it enticing to say, oh, deeded beach access people, that we gave you deeded beach access back whenever they did, oh, come this way, not through our property, come through somebody else's property. And so therefore, that also turned into a public beach access. That's all I have. And I'm happy to show you the realtor that sent me this, claiming that the Dita Beach access is through my property, which is, if anybody cares.

Anything else Mr. Boone? I would say that clearly answers the question of why the there's that portion of the fence over the end of the wall and you know Mr. Jennings I wasn't going to ask him while he was up here with me if he was the gentleman that fell off the wall but you've heard about that now and there's clearly is a need to secure that for Mr. Junda not only for his own family but for liability purposes for people going on the wall and falling onto his property. All of that together, Mr. Junda did a really good job of giving you his experience as the property owner dealing with this. I can attest that he has been very proactive with multiple departments. As I said, we've been working with code enforcement, planning department, FDEP, all taking the necessary steps available to us to try to properly resolve this matter. This is one big component here, and we respectfully request your approval of the variance.

Thank you. With that I will close the public hearing and then do I hear a motion.

Mister McCann. Based on review of the application materials, staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission sitting as the local planning agency finds this petition meets each of the variance criteria in section 1.13.3 of the Land Development Code and therefore moves to approve variance petition number 26-23VZ.

I have a motion by Mr. McCain to approve. Do I have a second? Mister chairman second is to have a second by Mister Hale any further discussion. Seeing none can have a vote please. And the motion passes unanimously. I knew it would be an interesting one to take. Did I just hear a bird?

And here.

good okay um well that was a interesting day variances to the same thing two variants the same thing um well now you're on break your next meeting is not until august 18th so that will be your next meeting this is the typical break that city council takes planning commission takes for your um take out the second meeting in july and the first meeting in august so on that meeting we do have three applications at this point we have a site plan a preliminary plan and a design alternative so you will have some work to do that day the only other thing i did want to let you know is that next tuesday is city council's last meeting before the break and the seaboard consultants will be there to do the presentation that you saw However, it's been a little bit enhanced, it's colorized, and it looks a little bit different than what you saw. Same basic presentation, but if you're interested, you might want to tune into that or come to the meeting, but the consultant will be here to do that.

um beyond that i have nothing left i would just say just enjoy your break and we'll see y'all when you get back august 4th is the next meeting no 18th august 18th 18th yep thank you okay anything else any questions for roger any comments by any commissioners no seeing none we'll see you august 18th all right we're adjourned