She's still She still came. And that's
Thank you. It's not this meeting of the county board of adjustment on January 21, 2026 is hereby called to order. With five members present, we have a quorum. Will the clerk please swear in members of staff? Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear and affirm? testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Help you God? I do. You members of the board,
copies of staff's resumes have previously been provided and remain on file for reference. The board has previously recognized staff as expert witnesses. Does anyone have any questions regarding their qualifications and abilities to offer expert testimony? Seeing none, the BOA meeting package for January 21, 2026 with the development services staff findings of fact have previously been provided to board members. The chair will now entertain a motion
to accept the BOA meeting package into evidence. Motion. Motion made by Willie, second by Susan. Um, all those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. And it is unanimous 5-0. The motion passes. Uh,
Madame Clerk, do we have proof of publication? Yes, sir. Did the publication meet all of the legal requirements? Yes, sir. The chair will now entertain a motion to pardon me. Wave the reading of the legal advertisement. Do we have a motion? Motion. Motion by Willie. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ross. Um, all those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. And it
is unanimous. 5 Z. The motion passes. Members of the board, have you reviewed the minutes for the board of adjustment meeting held on December 17, 202? Upon your review of the minutes, are there any additions, deletions, or corrections? Seeing none, the chair will now entertain a motion regarding the minutes for the board of adjustment meeting
held on December 17, 2025. Do we have a motion? I make a motion we accept the minutes. We have a motion from Susan. Second. The second by Willie. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. And it is unanimous. Motion passes. Willie, would you please read the purpose of the board of adjustment and conduct of the meeting? Purpose of the board of adjustment and conduct of meeting. The board of adjustment BOA hears administrative appeals variances and a conditional use request. These hearings are quasi
judicial in nature. Quasi jud judicial hearings are like evidentary hearings in the court of law, however less formal. All public testimony will be taken under oath and anyone testifying before the BOA may be subject to cross-examination. All documents and exhibits that the BOA considers are entered into evidence and made part of the record. The giving of opinion testimony will be limited to experts and closing arguments will be limited to the evidence in the record. After hearing the
testimony and arguments for the for and against proposed action and before making its decision, the BOA will consider the relevant testimony, the exhibits entered into evidence and the applicable law. The cost decisions of the BOA relating to variances, conditional uses, and extensions of development order for site plan approval are final unless overturned by a court of competent jurisdiction. The county may issue development orders and permits for the properties in the
ordinance with the decisions of the DOA. However, if the applicant requests the issuance issuance of any such order or permit and such order or permit is issued, the applicant and not the county shall bear any risk that such decision may be set aside. The development order or permit may be revoked or the development may be otherwise enjoined by the reviewing court. Any applicant for relief from a decision of the BOA for said actions or any agrieved party as defined by state law may seek
review of such decisions by filing an appropriate pleading in the court of a competent jurisdiction within 30 days of the BOA decision. The date of the BOA decision shall be the date of the the date the BOA voted at the conclusion of the hearing. Whenever the BOA denies an application, no new application for an identical action on the same parcel shall be accepted for consideration within a period of 180 days of the BOA decision. Any person agreed by a decision of the BOA relating to
an appeal of an administrative decision may within 15 days thereafter apply to the circuit court for review. Each individual who wishes to address the board regarding a particular issue must complete a blue request to speak form and submit it to the clerk of board. These forms are located on the table at the back of the commission chambers. You will not be allowed to speak until we receive one of these completed request to speak forms. We must have these completed forms for public record.
Exparte communications all written or oral communications subject I'm sorry outside of this hearing with members of the board of adjustment regarding matters underway reviewed today are considered as exparte communications. Exparte communications are presumed prejuditial under Florida law and must be discussed disclosed as provided in county board of county commissioners
resolution 9613 before a decision by any board member on any administrative appeal variance or conditional use request. The chair would ask as each case is heard that any board member who has been involved in any exparte communication regarding the respective issue to please identify themselves and describe the communication. All right, we have first case number CU 2026-03,
1420 West 9M Road, a conditional use request to amend the operational hours of approved case CU 2025-10 for on per premise alcohol consumption within 10,000 ft of a child care facility. requested by Meredith Bush, agent for 9M Phase Plaza LLC owner. Does any board member have excommunicate communications regarding this case? Seeing none, does any board member
have knowledge of information obtained from a site visit or other sources? Seeing none, ask board members um if you intend to refrain from voting due to a conflict of interest on this case. All right. Would the individuals who are a party to this item please come to the podium and state your name and address for record so that you can be sworn in by the clerk. Good morning board. Meredith Bush. Um 314 South Balin Street, Sweet 108, Pensacola 32502. And I'm typically
not sworn. All right. Um have you been provided with a copy of the criteria required to obtain a conditional use and a copy of the findings of fact? Yes. And you understand that all the criteria must be met in order for the board of adjustment to grant a conditional use? Yes. Uh does the board have any questions for the applicant be? Well, I'm do you want to present um findings and facts or Sure, I can I'm happy to briefly go through um this is a case where
we are in agreement with staff's findings. Staff um is recommending approval. You may recall we were here last year um seeking a conditional use which you granted to allow on premise consumption of alcohol at the Pelican. It is located uh adjacent to but across a retention pond from Little Prodigy's daycare center. Um we've since come back with this uh revised or amended um application seeking to allow the expanded use the on uh on-site um on premise consumption
indoor of alcohol during hours when the school is closed. So on recognized holidays and weekends when there's no overlap um or conflict of uses, we're simply asking that you expand the previously uh granted conditional use to allow um that additional service at our facility. And uh um that really is the only difference in criteria from the prior package that you approved uh last year. And I'm happy to take any questions. Questions from any board member?
Um, Miss Bush, with respect to holidays, is it federally approved holidays or can you elaborate on that? So, we said, um, holidays recogniz in our submittal holidays recognized by the Escambia County School District, although Little Prodigies is a private school. Um, and listed in our um, application, the standard Florida school closure holidays would include New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. day, President's Day, Spring Break, Memorial Day, Independence Day,
Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving break, a winter Christmas break, Good Friday and Easter um holidays, and then any professional de development or teacher work days, but it would be um you know in conjunction with whenever Little Prodigies is closed. So we would have to, you know, get from them their dates and it would only be the additional um sale of alcohol for on premise consumption when the school was actually closed.
Other board questions. Um staff, would you take us through the findings of fact, please? Certainly. Caleb Mccardi, AICP planner on behalf of the county. First, we'll have some maps and photography here. U this is our location map showing the location at 1420 West 9 mile road. This is our 500 foot radius zoning map. The zoning is heavy commercial light industrial ACLI.
The future land use designation of the property is mixeduse urban. Um this is our site distance map that we referenced in our findings that shows the relation of the proposed use um in relation to the conflicting use of the childcare facility. This is an aerial showing the location. The building is actually um up now I believe. So our notice of public hearing sign that we posted out front along Nile. Uh yes, this is looking onto the site as you see under construction. Um again looking onto
the site in reference you can see the corner of the other building to the right hand side um where the childcare facility there there is a extensive retention pond that was is currently under construction between these two buildings and that shows it there. Um this is the adjacent development as reference. This is looking east along West Nile Road. Also looking east, another photo. This is looking across NM Road there towards some apartments. Um, this is looking
south across West NM Road and looking west. That completes our maps of photography. If you'd like, I can proceed into a summary of this item. So remember um previously the conditional use for this property to remind the board uh was under KCU 2025-10. Um in particular it was to allow for on premise alcohol consumption within a th000 ft of a childcare facility. Um, per the previous case,
the BOA granted the conditional use with the applicant's amendment of the operating hours to reflect package sales to start at 10:00 a.m. and the bar services to start at 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 2 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. That's what they were approved for originally. This amendment request is seeking to expand the operational hours for on-site alcohol service specifically to weekends and holidays for hours during which the child care facility
is not operating and are otherwise closed. So at this time the amendment to the previous case did not change our findings. Um so we still recommend approval based upon the criteria of the land development code. Um and that would be up to the purview of the board of adjustment. So specific to the previous case, it's an amendment. Does the board have any questions for staff?
Um, we have one uh person from the audience. Um, Buddy Stroberg here. That is for the uh one of the last cases, not this case. Oh, I'm sorry. Out of order. Okay. I don't believe we have any speakers. Yeah. Okay. Um any questions for the applicant?
Okay. Board members recall um the request for conditional use and the discussions we had and um this is only for expanding the hours um for liquor use. All right. Having no other questions, Mr. Chairman. Chair will now entertain a motion regarding No, that's that's what I wanted. I
was I was um I was going to say if there's no further discussion. I'd like to entertain a motion um to um approve according to staff's findings um based on the fact that um both neighbors they have been working together when they came in here. You know um it it it didn't seem to be that way at first but um they came together and they have been working together and um I don't see anybody in here opposing and um so I would like to make a motion to um approve according to staff's findings this morning. Motion by Willie. Second. Second. Second by Susan. Please
raise your right hand if you are in agreement with this motion. Motion passes unan unanimously. All right. Uh second case number CU 20265 4524 Softly Field Road. A conditional use request to allow outdoor storage of trailer boats and recreational vehicles requested by Tom Harmon, agent for Northwest
Florida AC LLC owner. Um, if the applicant would approach the microphone, please. Okay. Please state your name and address uh and be sworn in by the clerk. All right. Tom Hammond, Hammond Engineering, 3802 North S Street, Pensacola, Florida, 3250. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I hope you got it. I do. Board members, are there any exparte communications regarding this case? Seeing none, is there any knowledge or information obtained from a site visit or other sources? Seeing none, does any board member intend to refrain from voting due to a voting conflict of interest? Seeing none.
Um, and if I may, uh, sorry for the interruption just in case if there if there are any technical questions from the engineering, Mr. Hammond has presented to this book for as a subject matter expert. So he so I can't box for him, but he has presented engineering questions as a subject matter expert to this board on many occasions. So just in case if that come up about the site plan and storm water engineering. Thank you. Definitely has to subject matter that's been
qualified as well. Have you been provided a copy of the criteria required to obtain a conditional use? Yes sir. And you have a copy of the findings of fact? I do. Would you like to make a presentation or Well, I think it'd be pretty short because even though they're worded different, our findings of fact agree with county's findings of fact. So, we can make this short if y'all want to or I can walk through it. Board, would you like this? If um if it's okay with the board,
um I think it's time to hear from staff at this time, you know. Okay. All right. Andrew Homer, Escambia County Development Services. This conditional use 20265. Here we have our location map. You can see it's on Softly Field Road just to the west of Mobile Highway. This is a zoning map. You can see it is split zone. The majority of the zoning down in that area around that intersection of those two arterial roads is commercial. Future land use map shows the entire parcel is
commercial. This is an aerial map of the site. For those of you familiar uh with the area, this is just to the west of you've you've got a McDonald's there on the corner. Uh I believe a CVS. Next. Thank you. Public hearing sign posted on site. That's looking back east along Softly Field Road. This is looking north uh onto the subject property. Again, looking north
and looking northwest from Softly. All right. As to the staff findings, uh Mr. Hammond, as Mr. Hammond stated, staff is recommending approval. And I'll go through these one at a time. This is a conditional use request to allow outdoor storage. As to the first criterion, this is um dealing with general compatibility. Subject parcel is located along commercial and other mixed among commercial and other mixed uses and is along
a minor arterial road within a quarter mile of the intersection with a primary arterial road. The proposed use can be operated in a manner compatible with the surrounding uses along this commercial corridor. Second criteria is dealing with facilities and services. They are available and will be provided as needed for the proposed use. Connection to those services will be reviewed during development review. Third criteria is dealing with on-site circulation. Ingress and
egress will be via a connection to Softly Field Road and an internal drive. Specific connections will be reviewed during that development stage. Um fourth criteria is dealing with nuisances and hazards. The proposal is for a relatively low impact land use and shouldn't generate nuisance conditions for the neighboring parcels. Fifth one, solid waste. Uh solid waste service must be provided as needed for the proposed use. Six would be criteria uh screening and buffering.
Um comments from planning staff related to screening and buffering for the proposed development were provided to the applicant during development review. They did a pre-application. The conditional if the conditional use is approved, the applicant must meet the screening and buffering requirements of the land development code. Um seven is dealing with signs and lighting. Signs and lighting will be evaluated and will be limited to what is allowed by provisions of the
LDC. Exterior lighting shall be deflected from adjoining properties and public streets. Eight, this is uh site characteristics. The site appears adequate for the proposed use as it is level and not constrained by any natural physical factors and nine specific use requirements. No repair, overhaul, or salvage activities are allowed, and the storage must be screened and maintained to avoid nuisance conditions. The findings staff recommends approval of the proposed use as
requested with the condition of completion of the DRC process and receipt of a development order. Does the board have any questions with for staff? Um, does board have any further questions for the applicant? Would the applicant like to add anything to I would just say that there's a lot more intense use could be done on this based on the zoning than
what's going to be what we're proposing and I'd ask for y'all to approve it. Thank you. All right, we have one. No speakers on this case, Mr. Sh. Pardon? No speakers on this case. Only the applicant. Oh, okay. All right. The board has no further questions. Chair will entertain a motion regarding CU 2025 20 265. And with your motion, please state whether or not you adopt the staff's
findings of fact as presented by staff. If for any reason you do not accept staff's findings, please go through all the criteria and address each one specifically as to why you do not occur concur with staff's findings and provide substitute findings. Mr. Speaker, I move that we accept staff's recommendation. We have we have a motion to approve. Second. And we have a second. All those
in favor raise your right hand. And it is unanimous. The motion passes. Thank you. All right. Case number CU 2026-02 5490. Cruz that way. A conditional use request to allow an accessory dwelling unit on a lot less than one acre in MDR zoning. Requested by Meredith Bush, agent for Ranada, I'm sorry, I'm going to butcher this name. Uh, Chu Zack
board members, is there any experte communications regarding this case? Seeing none, is there any knowledge or information obtained from a site visit or other sources? Seeing none, does any board member intend to refrain from voting due to a voting conflict of interest? Seeing none, would the individuals who are a party to this item please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record so you can be sworn in by the clerk. Meredith, you have already
been sworn in. Yes. Thanks. Meredith Bush, 314 South Balin, sweet 108 Pensacola 32502. Or any questions? Um, do you want to um do we have findings of facts on this one? Okay. Would the staff would would you staff
present findings of fact or That's fine if the staff wishes to go first. This is another case on the conditional use where we agree with staff's findings and they're recommending approval of the conditional use. Um but if you'd like them to present then I can um you know follow them with our um you know very similar findings. Okay. Staff would you present findings of fact please? Yes, sir. Kimberly Wilson, senior planner. So, this is for uh conditional use CCU 20262 uh 5490 Cruz at Way. So, the requested conditional use is
uh for an existing accessory dwelling unit uh to be located in the front yard of a waterfront lot. Um the lot is is also less than 1 acre. Um and they're also uh requesting in conjunction with this a variance um for the required setback uh setbacks for the actual ADU and the lot. So here we have the location map. Next map we do have the radius zoning map. Next one is the future land use map.
This is the flood zone map. It's an aerial map. This is our sign of notice of public hearing. This is looking northeast onto the parcel and the property or the ADU. This is looking east onto the property. Looking north from Cruiset Way. And this is looking onto the subject property. Okay. Now for staff findings. Uh going through all the criterians. Um criterion A general
compatibility finding a facts from staff. The applicant has submitted a site plan and a sealed survey showing an existing accessory dwelling unit uh located within the front yard of the property. The proposed use is capable of being conducted and operated in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent properties and the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Criterion B, facilities and services. Public facilities and services are available to serve the subject parcel and are currently being utilized by the applicant. On-site circulation,
ingress and egress properties located along crews at way. Proposed use will not adversely affect traffic circulation, pedestrian safety, or emergency vehicle access and is consistent with the functional use of the roadway. Criteria D nuisance and hazards. The applicant has represented that the proposed accessory dwelling unit, ADU, will not create nuisances or hazards for the adjoining properties. Approval of the conditional use would allow the applicant to exercise residential rights consistent with the other homes in the surrounding neighborhood and
while remaining compatible with the character and use of the area. Criterion E. Next, solid waste. Based on the submitt application, solid waste collection services are currently provided to the subject property by Emerald Coast Utilities Utilities Authority. Screening and buffering criterion F. Proposed use does not require additional screening or buffering as both the use and the zoning of the property are residential and compatible with surrounding
properties. Signs and lighting criterion G. The applicant has stated that no signage will be placed on the structure and that any exterior lighting will be designed and operated in a manner that will not create a nuisance to neighboring properties. Site characteristics. Criterion H. According to the county GIS system, the site is located within an AE flood zone. If conditional use is approved, the applicant will be required to submit construction plans that comply
with all applicable standards for development in a FEMA designated special flood hazard area as outlined in the land development code and the Florida building code. Use requirements. The existing accessory dwelling unit, ADU, is subordinate to the principal dwelling and is located on the same lot. Additional requirements may be applicable and will need to be addressed by the Escami County Building Inspections Department. In conclusion, staff findings based on the review of the submitted material and applicable land development code standards, staff recommends
approval of the conditional use as requested. Does the board have any questions for staff? Uh, does the board have any additional questions um from the applicant? All right, we have um several people in the audience um that want to speak. Um, Buddy Stroberg.
Please provide your name and address and be sworn in by the clerk. My name is Bloody Stroberg. I live at 5671 Cruz Airway. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. I do. Thank you. Okay. Um I just noticed all this was coming down and I'm trying to find out what building are we talking about to allow an accessory dwelling unit and then a sideyard setback variance on this property.
I mean, how big is the building going to be? Where's it going to be set at? It's the existing building. What existing building? It's already built. It's the garage. That's the one that was supposed to be a garage. It's a rental unit now, right? It's not a rental. Okay. It was approved as a garage. Okay. All right. Um, another question why I'm here. If you look at the garbage can up here, there's no parking sign there. And there's also a wood a wooden picket with a ch a chain link gate
right there that was put in back a while back. What I'm going to see about doing while we're here is to get them signs removed so the people that live there on cruise that way can actually go down there and use the waterway like we used to. Now, they had a thing going back in 2017 for some kind of setback. I forget what it was exactly. I think it had to do something with that building that you were talking about there, but and we can see uh more outstanding what the heck's going on,
you know, but give the community time to to research what they want them to do. I think you mentioned something about they got to put in plans for what they're going to be building. Is that correct? Yes, sir. They would uh the ADU it's already built. So So the structure that she showed you on the screen, it's already built. Um just backtory history on it. You are correct. Several years ago, it was approved for an accessory structure garage in the front yard. Okay. And but the variance was denied because I believe they were asking
for it to be less than 60 ft from the property line. So that portion of it was denied, but it was approved for the garage in the front yard. I remember that. So it's already built that part. But I was just confused about the other parts. I mean, how big is this other building going to be? So the main house is already there as well. That's built. So these are structures already built. Okay. It's no new building. They're already built. Oh, okay. Yes, sir. All right. Okay. So, what can we do about getting them signs removed down there at the end of the road?
So, that is county unopen county rightway. Yep. Free for access to all. There should be no nothing blocking it. There's ballards blocking it. They can't have ballers. Ballards were put in there right up there by Stop your mouse. Come on. Back up. Right there. They were right there. The only thing that should be in there is things permitted by the county. And uh when I went out to post the signs, I didn't see anything we had installed. So the other stuff would need to go that would be county installed those bers. Yes. The other any kind of fencing,
gating, what have you, uh installed by a homeowner would need to be removed. Okay. Thank you. That's what I like that the county installed them. So the county installed them. Well, the county didn't install the signs is what I'm saying. Correct. Correct. All that they did. So, Mr. Homer, you can work with him on that and he can get with other about the signs and that's not for this board. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you board. Any further questions? Okay. We have uh Mary Inert, if I pronounced that correctly.
Please state your name and address and be sworn in by the clerk. Marian Abnet, 144 35 Gorm Road. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth help God? Yes. Good morning. Good morning. Um, I don't know how my visuals can be seen. I I guess I should have brought them as digital. Um, can I just hold them up? Sure. I was invited here by public
hearing notice. I live right across the street. Um, and this is just a picture of pictures of the uh end of Cruz Way and how it has been used for generations and it is public access and um I wasn't sure what exactly um was going to happen there because land has moved around
And um people have moved and new people have moved. And so um my concern is that our water access is there's one on Babalink and one on Cruz, which were the reasons why I moved there because I could put my kayak in the water and now I'm living my best grandmother life. My grandkids are coming down and and we go down there. Um I'm teaching them to fish and and
uh kayak. I have two four-year-old grandsons and um there have been no parking signs put down there. And so my concern was that maybe somehow neighbors are trying to acquire that property. And I don't know who to even talk to, but this was a concern. And and on here, one of
these is a sideyard setback variance. Is that a sideyard or is that I I would just like it to be um acknowledged here today that those are public accesses and we're not trespassing if we use them. So and there's no intent to vacate. So the what is that? Correct. Th that is county right ofway. All
right. All the way to the water, free and clear, open to all. Um the only way that someone could ever block, take possession, what have you, of county rightway would to seek u through the county county commission a vacation of the rightway, at which point half would go to the owners on either side. No one has sought that here. And um frankly, the county commission has over the years um
declined to vacate anything that provides public access to the water. Commissioner Doug Underh Hill and and then Jeff Burgosh. It correct. And and it goes back. It's that was going to remain that way. Correct. Not not even just that one district, but countywide. um they have not been amanable to any requests to vacate any sort of public access. But there have been attempts to put in rocks and oyster beds and all sorts of things that would really discourage entry into the bay there because
correct. No, nothing should be going on there that's not being done by the county. Requested to do anything? No. No request. This is And this we want to be clear this is this is on his property per se and again as as as deputy director spoken spoke um those matters will be handled if there's any action on that they will be handled by by by another under another purview on that part but we'll be glad to give you those contact information Mr. T day or or anything concerning
public beach access, we'll be glad to you can stay informed. You can stay in the loop on those matters. Yes, ma'am. We'll be glad to because you do have the right to know about about those public beach access. But in this purview, as Drew stated, it does not happen. If there's any barriers or anything like that, Mr. Andrew, he'll work with our uh our other department who's over that to see if those things can be cleared up, per se. But his case is specifically with his case conditional use
and variance on his lot. That's why he's being represented by the attorney. If there's any if there's anything that's not factual, his attorney going to have to work it out. Okay. Well, there's just been a lot of land moved on that property. It moved forward into the bay and then uh crews at I mean at Gorum Road used to go across and that land was vacated. So, you know, I've watched all this happening and I me and some of my neighbors get concerned because um it's it's really a very
friendly and quiet neighborhood and and uh we just want it to remain having the water access and and nature of the area that that we love. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Does the board have any questions? for the speaker. All right. Chair will now entertain a motion regarding item CU 2026-02.
Oh, I'm sorry. Jav, unfortunately, I'm I'm sorry that I'm here today because Mr. Chairman. Uh, yes. Would you? My name is Javin McGomery. I I apologize. My name is Javin McGomery. I live at 14430 Gorm Road. I am two doors from this property on Gorm Road. Please raise your right hand. Yes. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony about to give will be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth shall be God? Yes. Okay. You may go ahead. Yes. Um, again, I'm I'm I'm sorry I'm here today because unfortunately this person is my neighbor, and I don't want to go against him. However, the way he handled this and the way this has been done is completely bamboozled everyone in this entire room and everyone in this entire situation. And I am very upset at how he handled this situation. First of all, I'd like to understand and let everybody
know that I consider myself to be an expert in real estate. I've been in real estate for 25 years. I currently own, operate, and manage over 437 units across three different states and 260 of those units are here in Escambia County. I am a developer. I'm a real estate expert. I'm a real estate broker as well as this is my home. This was where my parents live right now. And I consider this to be my retirement home. And the way this was developed and the way this was operated was
completely against code against what was the use of this property and how this developer Albert actually went about this. And I actually brought this to the attention of code enforcement and the board everything when it was being built because I was concerned that he lied. 100% he lied. And that building there, if you can point to the accessory structure that we're talking about, this is the accessory structure. I want everyone to look at in the front of that, that is supposed
to be a garage. It was permitted as a garage. How do you fit a garage through a window? I'm sorry. How do you fit a car through a window? You don't. It was never intended to be a garage. He actually built it as a tiny home. And he built that as a tiny home before he finished the house on the water. If everyone will look as well, there's another home in front of the accessory,
which is a two-story home. And that is, you don't see it in the picture, but it's all the way to the right. Okay? And that is the accessory home that he actually took the lot and he split it. And then he built a brand new home, two-story home on the one side of the lot. Then he took the existing single family home and he moved it down the street all the way down to another lot that he bought because he was trying to make this as many use as possible. and he basically overused this
lot. And when he built this, which is upsetting to me, is the fact that he never built that as a garage. He never intended it to be a garage. He never put a garage door in there. You could never fit a garage in there or a car in there from day one. And unfortunately, what he's done is he's taken one piece of property and he's built another home, then he's built his waterfront home, then he's built a tiny home on this property. And it's wrong. This is not an existing building.
When he built this dad gum thing, it should have been permitted only as a garage. And I called the building. I called everyone and said, "Listen, he's building it as a home. He's not building it as a garage. And he's putting a bathroom in it. He's putting a kitchen in it. He's putting a living room in it. And he's putting a bedroom in it. The last time I checked, a garage does not have those type of amenities and those type of facilities. I'm like, the thing that he didn't put
is he didn't put one debt blamed garage door from the time he built it. And he lied to the permit board to to everyone and and basically tried to bamboozle his way in. and he went with the I want to ask forgiveness rather than permission because he knew he would never get it approved as a living structure. So now what he's done is he's basically bamboozled everybody, pulled the wool over his eyes and basically bamboozled everyone over here and said, "Hey, well again,
where was the garage door? Where where was it ever used as a garage?" Commentary. We will have commentary chairman if you but we have commentary. It should have never been allowed and please do not allow this to happen. I'm upset at how he did this. He bamboozled everybody and he should not be allowed to use that as an accessory building for a living structure. It's wrong. 100% wrong. Can Can I ask um what the timing was? Um sir sir yes sir asking staff okay
he's asking staff you're asking me asking us so you can have your seat he's asking staff okay you can have your seat please in January 2021 the request came forward to this board um and it was granted it was conditional use to place an accessory structure a garage in the front yard of a waterfront lot. Building inspections, as this progressed,
alerted our department and said, "Hang on, this is living quarters. This isn't a garage." Which was what it was approved for. Um, one of the conditions at that point was when you're when you're dealing with structures in a flood zone, a garage is not living space. It can be vented if it's below the ele proper elevation. Um, building inspections required an elevation certificate to see if this structure as it is
now met the proper requirements because a living space is completely different than a garage. They did meet the elevation requirements but then are having to come to this board yet again now that is an accessory dwelling unit instead of the originally approved garage. So that's that's what got everyone to this point. And and and and if I and and and if I may, if I may, board members,
um I I do understand his compassion, his uh his passion about this, but I do want to address a few things. When the planning was on department and the building inspection department became aware of this ongoing issue, we stepped in immediately. Immediately the the holes were placed. Uh uh we reached out to his attorney that he got to represent and we've had we had
very very frank conversations on this matter. very very frank stirring conversations on this matter. Holes were placed. Unfortunately, we not to excuse any type of behavior, but to be factual. Incidents like this happen. Unfortunately, it does. I've been doing this over 20 years and it does. Does it make it right? No. But it's our job to try to provide a pathway for
compliance and and to address any penalties that may be necessary. Does it happen? Yes. Do we like it? Unfortunately, we do not. And we've had very frank hard conversations, hard talk. and much respect for the uh Miss Miss Crawford, Miss Bush on this matter. So, so this is where we are today. It's the board purview, the board decision that conditional use,
it met all of those standards, a pathway for compliance. It it is in the hands of the board. There are holes in place. staff. We we uh move very very quickly and assertively to get them to this point. Whether they asking for forgiveness or not, that's up to this board. But this is what we're here. Does it meet the standards in this case? It does. It existing. Yes,
it is. Does it meet the standards? So, so and and our requirements does it meet the minimum requirement and And that's what the code says. Sometimes I have we have to step I have to step out of my and get what based upon the codes and and the property rights are available to all one without negating the neighbors concerns and issues at all and we are not negating those concerns.
If I may address uh some of the comments made by neighbors and then also respond to um staff's narrative. Um as far as the questions initially asked by Mr. Stroberg, there's no and as outlined in our packet, there is no intent to construct an additional building. So we're talking about this structure you see that's already existing. So So what's there is what we're referring to. Um, as it relates to Miss Inelbert's questions, um, the access to the waterway, this
doesn't impact that. Um, Ballard's place there were placed by the county, not by the property, the adjacent property owner. I'm not aware of any signs, but you know, we are well aware we can't place anything in county property, county right away. So to the extent that um you know there if there have been signs there it's my understanding they were not placed by my client but you know we'll agree not to place anything in that access. Um, as has been stated, we were before you. I
wasn't representing uh the owner at the time, but there was an applicant here, council here for the applicant back in 2021. And the structure itself, the building was approved. Whether you call it a garage, a workshop, a shed, you know, it is an accessory structure and approved as an accessory structure. um because of the code at the time and the location on the lot, it had to come through the conditional use approval. And that goes to when you're on a waterfront lot,
you know, what's the rear yard, what's the sidey yard, what's the front yard. It it was granted the approval at that time. When we were initially contacted by the county and told, hey, this was approved as an accessory structure, not as an accessory dwelling unit. Our first response to the county was, well, there's no intent that this structure be permanently occupied by anyone. The intent of the owner would be that occasionally his son's visiting would stay overnight. Yes,
it has a bathroom. Yes, there's a kitchen. It's not going to be rented. It's not going to be occupied as a second full-time house. So, you know, our our first response was, "Well, it's not a dwelling unit. we don't need the conditional use. After working with the county, we're like, look, to the extent that there may have been an error made prior to my involvement, we'll ask forgiveness. We will go through the process. We'll seek the accessory dwelling unit approval. We'll agree to pay four times the permitting fees, whatever we need to do to make
this right. At this time, the structures there. At this time, the, you know, internal facilities are there. We've already filed an affidavit with the county saying it's not going to be, you know, it's not a rental property. It's not full-time occupancy. And to excuse me, to so to the extent we've done everything that we know to do, as Mr. Jones said, to come into compliance, we're here to come into compliance. Your job as the board is to analyze whether or not we've met the criteria.
If we have met the criteria, then you're bound by law to grant the conditional use. We have said we've met the criteria. The county has said we've met the criteria. Nothing presented in Mr. Stroberg's questions, excuse me, in Miss Intelbert's questions or in Mr. Montgomery's um you know, statements about how upset he is about this. Nothing in that impacts the criteria. Nothing in that shows that we haven't met the criteria. Nothing in what they've said
constitutes competent and substantial evidence. And your job again is to look for whether or not there's competent substantial evidence that we've met the criteria. So we're here saying we've met the criteria, the location, the, you know, access, ingress, egress, nuisance conditions, solid waste, all of the things, lighting, signs, all of the criteria in the code have been established. So we would ask for approval. You know, any commentary about a variance? Yes, we do have a subsequent
application. First step is the conditional use. We're here right now on the conditional use. After this hearing is closed, you'll reopen another hearing and that's where we'll talk about the variance, but the criteria before you right now are the conditional use criteria for an accessory dwelling unit. It has been established. Again, we've agreed to pay additional permitting fees. You know, all we can do at this point is say the building is there. Um, obviously, there's no garage door on the building. We're asking that it be allowed to be used as an accessories dwelling
unit with the understanding again it's going to be used for the current owner occupants um for their children when they come to visit. It's not going to be a rental property. It's not for full-time occupancy. And so if we have you have any other questions, I'm happy to take those. Um I know it's not a popularity contest. Um but there are members in the audience who are here in support um of the owner who did not sign up to speak um to the extent that it matters. Um I would like the
record to reflect that there are other people here who you know live close by and are not offended or upset by the fact that um this property owner has lawfully developed his property. Miss Bush, before you sit down um board, any questions? I have one. I have one. All right. Uh, is this area is it included in an HOA? I would imagine so. No, there's no HOA. Okay. Thank you. I didn't know. Just just one quick question. Um,
how can you assure that it would not be a rental Airbnb, you know, with cash on the side deal type thing? How can you assure that? Or there's really no way to assure it. And I know you're here today to meet the criteria which you have met, but I I was that was just a question. You know, there really is no way. I mean, so when you own property, you have, you know, a bundle of sticks, those property rights, and you're allowed to rent out a residential unit in the same way that if
they wanted to rent the main house on Airbnb or rent out individual rooms to 20 different people, you know, you have those rights. Um, it's not their intention to do that. But again, we've, you know, filed sworn affidavit with the county saying we're not going to do that. Um, but short of you, you know, us just saying it, there's no way. I mean, the county can't tell someone who owns residential property that they're not allowed to rent that property on a long-term or a short short-term basis. I mean, the law is very clear on that. Um, and I understand, you know,
me saying, "Oh, this is not what they're going to do." That's, you know, I understand your position or or the neighbors who are upset, maybe their position that, well, we're just saying that. Um, but just to be frank, there's nothing that you can do when someone owns residential property to stop them from renting it out short term or long term, unless of course there were covenants and restrictions in an you pre-existing the date of the most recent legislation um that established those those ownership restrictions and and that doesn't exist here. Would would pardon me would
you clarify um to the board um the initial approval was that for a garage or an accessory dwelling? So it was for a garage an accessory structure. So So the the accessory garage phrase is not something that's in the code. What's in the code is accessory structure and accessory dwelling unit. Um a garage would be classified as a structure in the same way that a workshop or a shed or just a secondary building. Um the dwelling unit uh difference is that it has you know the
dwelling quarters which includes the bathrooms and the kitchen facilities. Um so the initial approval was not for a dwelling unit. However, in the initial approval, um, and those records are in your backup, there was a sentence or two that said, and this property may occasionally be used as overnight dwelling or or or something to that effect, which again, as I said, we went back and forth with the county initially to say, look, this was approved and we had this language
in that initial approval. While yes, the overall intent was a structure, there was terminology that said it may be used in the future for this and you approved it, but rather than fighting the county on whether or not that technically gave us the right already, we said, "Look, you want us to come in and go through the conditional use process, file the application, pay the application fees, pay any we're just trying to make it right. We don't want the neighbors upset. We want to be good neighbors. We want to be good community members." And so, um, so that's why we're here. But in that
initial approval that was for a structure and not a dwelling unit, it did have language that the, you know, long-term intent was that this may be used in the future for a dwelling. And um let me for let me let me let please let us for the sake of clarity and for the sake of the record we we have a differing of opinion on that per the record. So what was approved and what was stated
so we can so we can read the record and and and and and this is but I'm glad Miss Crawford came to Miss Bush. Miss Bush. Thank you. Thank you for the correction please. I've been knowing you a long time. No, no disrespect. I came to conclusion that the land development code is right because there are clearly distinctive language on the difference inside the land development code throughout on accessory dwelling unit and a detach accessory structure which is typically a workshop or garage.
This what they asked previously. This what the BOA granted. the bill granted and the language is clear and precise and in order but we don't want to litigate that but that's we just want the record Miss Kim could you please could you please read that if for for for clarity of the record so initially in 2021 I'm sorry the approval from the board was for an accessory structure uh detached
garage workshop uh as Miss Bush stated now their language that they submitted it it said something um it had they had they may have the desire to potentially right so you know the main focus on that approval at that time it was not for a desire right it was not for a potential it was for specifically a detached structure was not for an ADU dwelling unit at all yes you can mention
that in your narrative you can mention a lot of things but the main focus will be on what you are actually asking for and not a potential or a desire. So that's what the board approved at that time, an accessory structure or a detached garage. And that's what at the time I do believe that's what drawings were submitted for just a garage. So even if you had that potential desire, your drawing said otherwise, right, that you submitted to the building department, right?
Um so again and like M director Jones is stating and and Miss Bush you know we are trying to create a pathway for compliance um today and and please be please if you want I I can't hear. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Um and and this is where we are. Uh um and and again Miss Meredith stated that she was not representing them at the time and as Kim stated so well so well we review things per
and we grant for the BOA and when they submitted plans for the proof it was permitted that but that's neither here nor there. The point is the conditional use requirement it does according to the county it does meet the standards. It does meet the standards. it but now it's back into the hands of the board how they want to proceed but it does meet the standard going forward with the pathway not trying to defend just trying to stay with the requirements of what I have to if I go to
court stand and state for the records the black and white language of the land development code not my personal feelings not my personal agenda the language of the land development code sir you'll get chance in a moment. Um I'll ask um our attorney is um initial request that was um approved by the board in 2021. Um legally um the way the words were written um was it for a garage
only or a structure only? Yes. Or did it include I don't have any I I think you should direct the question to we'll concede. I mean I will say that that it's the initial approval was an accessory structure. Yes. Not a dwelling unit. My point was simply that it does in the application packet, I felt have enough language regarding a use of this building as a dwelling unit to be comfortable
submitting a memo to the county prior to making this application to say, have you looked at this language? It you approve this in the in the, you know, proposed use, the proposed conditional use, it says dwelling. Can we just move forward and say we're approved? County said no. Again, we can litigate things all day, every day. Nobody wants to do that. Um, and I think it it is clear having watched the videos and gone back and reviewed and talked at length to county staff about this
that the prior approval was for the structure. Now, we're asking for the dwelling capacity. And Mr. Shaq, again, again, as the director, it's my job. basically the code gives me the right the responsibility to try to try navigate the right process and the right things. So, so, so they did, there was consensus based upon what was approved by the BOA, based upon what Miss Kim stated, based upon what they got a permit for. They got a permit for an accessory structure, not a dwelling unit, completely two different permits, two different sets of plans. So, they met those standards. So,
so regardless of that and staff concede and we understand that she's trying to she was trying to defend for her client what she's supposed to, but the black and white language of the approval emphatically and clearly states that this that what was approved here to litigate that all day that that was an accessory detach garage. But again, they they came in now they trying to comply. Will they follow on the mercy of the BOA? I don't know. That's up to them. But this is where we here today. So, so, so, so we don't have to, the decision was granted. The code
speaks for itself. This is where we are here today to see if they met the standards and staff again said that they does. And that's and I it's in the hands of the board to to make that decision. Sir, you you wanted to speak again, Mr. Chairman. Mr. chairman, before he come up and speak, I just want to uh just ask if um you know, I know this is uh something that you're real passionate about,
sir, but please let's be respectful this morning because we want to hear exactly what you have to say. You know, I mean, we appreciate you coming out, you know, taking the time to be concerned about your neighborhood. Yes, sir. The the main thing is they're saying that there is nothing else that can be done other than, you know, to grant this conditional use permit. There there absolutely could be something done. You can actually take, if you go back to the picture, okay, you can take the windows out of that garage and you can actually put two garage doors. You can
remove the kitchen, you can remove the bathroom, and you can turn it into a garage. And it's an accessory structure building just as a garage. That's what it was permitted for. That's what it was agreed to. And again, yes, you can allow him to keep using it the way it is, but unfortunately, he is going to at some point sell this property. And when he sells this property or when someone else inherits this property, it's going to be used as an Airbnb. It's going to be used as an accessory structure dwelling. And it does not, with all of the variances, meet these criteria,
and it would have never been allowed to be built. And that's what I'm upset about is the fact that he has already built two properties on a property that was actually one originally and now he's trying to basically turn it into a triplex which is multifamily commercial zoning and it's not zoned. That's spot zoning. And I know from a real estate standpoint I don't want my neighborhood spot-zoned into a multif family. I run a lot of apartment complexes and I don't want multif
family and what he's trying to do is basically make an apartment complex on a waterfront lot and it's just it it it's not right. He can turn it back into a garage. That's no problem. He can convert that into a garage very easily. All he has to do is take those windows out, put two garage doors in, and everything complies. No one keeps mentioning that. So, please understand he can comply with everything that he has. He doesn't have to tear the building down. He needs a garage.
But what he wants to do is he wants to basically bamboozle everybody, lie about the permit, and then get into a situation where he can Airbnb it or sell it to someone else so they can Airbnb it. So, it's not right. What he did is not right. And please do not allow this to happen. board. Other questions? Mr. Chairman, we had another speaker sign up. Oh, so in
5494 Cruise That way, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony or wat will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so be God? Yes. Thank you. Um, so I step up to the mic. live on the right side, the house that you can see on the right hand corner. So, if this affects anybody, it's me more than probably anybody else. And I just wanted to state that I'm in support with him keeping the way it is. I mean,
talk about the size of the lot. Like, there's plenty of room for the for the way he has it. Um, he's been very transparent with me with what he intends to do with it. Like when his kids come in town, I mean, there's nothing. He's been a really good neighbor since I've lived there for almost four years. He's never, you know, tried to deceive anybody in any way. I have no doubt
that what he intends to do with it is what he's communicated and um he hasn't mentioned any ideas of flipping the property and having to worry about that, you know, in the in the short term. So, I didn't come prepared to say anything. I I don't know anything about the permit situation. I just wanted to speak to the the character of uh Albert and his wife and the fact that if anybody should have a problem with it, it's me and I don't have a problem with it. So, thank you. Thank you,
Meredith. Um, I have a question for you. Um, if this had if this structure had been built as a garage, would it still been allowed to be used um on occasion um for overnight guests? That question, Mr. Mr. Ch, that's a question that comes before that should come before me. If they do do it, it will be on them. It was permitted as an accessory detached garage. Unfortunately,
do people convert those things. Unfortunately, they do, but they are permitted as not a dwelling unit. We want to be clear what the code says, not what they do, but what we permit them as. If there's any issues with that, if code enforcement get involved, then code enforcement have to get involved because there are violations of the land development code, which come under my department, not a lawyer. and and and of course they're going to get a lawyer try to defend it,
but the land of develop speaks for itself. Do people do it? Does it make it right? No. But if code enforcement get involved, they will have to provide evidence that they are in compliance with what we gave them land use approval for. And and just to kind of piggyback off that, I think, you know, the the differences between when someone constructs an accessory structure versus a dwelling unit really comes into the building code requirements, life safety requirements with
the idea that some human person will be occupying that that building. Um and as was stated by staff, building inspections did realize, oh wait, um this may be more of a dwelling unit and it had to meet the elevation certificates for the flood zone. It had to meet other criteria, which it does. Um while I again appreciate Mr. or is it Montgomery's passion um and you know anger um towards the situation? It's no different than, you know, if there were garage doors and us coming
in saying, "We want to take off the garage doors and put windows." Do we meet the criteria? County, do we meet the criteria? Yes, we meet the criteria to be an accessory dwelling unit. So, while that's not what happened here, yes, we understand the prior permission was for a structure. Now, we're saying we want to be a dwelling unit. We meet the criteria of the code. And so by law, if we've met the criteria supported by competent and substantial evidence presented in the record,
not the opinions of neighbors, not the objections of the neighborhood, it's not a, you know, public um opinion contest or popularity contest. It's a question of law. Have the criteria been established, then the law is clear, we should be granted the conditional use approval. And again, I do appreciate um the last gentleman who spoke uh to say, you know, there's nothing nefarious. You know, contrary to what's been presented by Mr. Montgomery,
um we are here trying to make it right. We have, you know, tried to work with the county. We have expressed a willingness. The county didn't come and say, you know, we're going to force you to do four times the permitting fees or we're going to force you. We said, "No, look, if if we made an error, let us make it right." And so, we're just asking to to both correct anything that that may have occurred prior to, you know, my involvement, but also be given the approval that um for which we qualify. So, staff, help me understand again. I know I heard you the first time, but it's a little
bit confusing. repeat what the timeline was with respect to um the original construction. So they came before this board with their request for accessory structure specifically on the application mentioned twice and their request for what it was for both conditional use and variance detached garage building inspector inspector um had gone out there said wait a minute that's not
what we're dealing with here. Um and it went from there. I'm looking at the the original building permit uh scope of work for proposed improvements accessory structure and then highlighted underneath that garage building. So at that point we were presented our department and building inspections with with this current situation. Um because the differing flood requirements
as I mentioned earlier um we had them secure an elevation certificate on the structure in question and it did meet the flood requirements. Um from that point then we worked as director Jones said we worked with their attorney and have reached this point. This is this is situation we were handed uh and the the path we're we have to put it on to get to where they would like to go.
Um let me ask one other question. what if any um controls are are there on this property um if it were to be sold and um someone um decided to make this into a B&B. So, the issue there um is short-term vacation rentals. That's a matter for the state. We are they preempt us on regulating that. Uh essentially, as Miss Bush
pointed out, if we did not have regulations prohibiting short-term vacation rentals before it was even a thing, we're not allowed to regulate it now. Okay. Or the state of Florida. Um would the I can't ask that question. board. Any other questions for the applicant? Staff, Mr. Chairman, that's a hand up. Does he have a um form to come up on this
matter? He he previously spoke. He had a form. He's your first speaker. Yes. again. Buddy Strongberg, 5671 cruise that way. Um, now I'm sitting here looking back, reflecting on what went on here. I would like to know how this man got approval to extend his property out into the bay.
Sir, that's not an issue for this board. Yeah, but I mean still you got to have permission to add to your land going out into the water. Yeah, that's not it's not under our review. Oh, okay. All right. Thanks, Mr. chairman, after hearing from the attorney and hearing from the neighbors and um I respect every one of the neighbors for coming out um today because um they do have valid concerns and that's whether we um deal
with those issues or whether we don't. Um all of their concerns are valid and um it's always good to see neighbors that care. But um from from what has been brought before us today is um we are here to decide whether it meets the criteria and um they have met each item that they should have met this far to come before us. And I I I regardless
of how I feel personally, um there's so many people that they do bamboozle people and use the law to get away with it. But I I can't sit here today before you and accuse this neighbor of that. I would be dead wrong to do that. But but they have met the requirements and it's our job to approve these items when they have met the requirement regardless of how we feel personally. So with that being said, if there's no um further comments or questions,
I would like to put a motion on the table to approve according to staff's findings because they have met all the requ. Before we have a motion, I'd like have board opportunity to Yes, sir. Yeah, most definitely. What's that? Any other any comments? Okay, Willie, go ahead. I would make like to make a motion to approve according to staff findings. And um and that's it. I'll second it. We have a motion by
Willie and a second by Ross. Um yeah. Uh, all those in favor of um of the uh motion, please raise your right hand. And it is unanimous. The motion passes. All right. We have case number V2 2026. I'm sorry, V2026-01.
Thank you. Okay. Um 5490 crews at way a variance request to allow a sideyard setback variance requested by Meredith Bush, agent for Ranada Chedwick, owner board, is there any exparte communications regarding this case? Seeing none board, do any of you have knowledge or information obtained from a site visit or other sources? Seeing none, does any
board member intend to refrain from voting due to a voting conflict of interest? Seeing none, would the individuals who are party to this item please come to the podium? And it's Miss Bush. And you have been sworn in. Yes, Meredith Bush, 314 South Balin, uh, sweet 108, Pensacola, Florida 32502.
Okay. Would would you like to present? I'm I'm happy to present. So this uh variance request relates to the cruisetway property that we have just gone through the conditional use on. Um the reason for the request is that the setbacks in the code are different when you're dealing with a structure versus a dwelling unit. So because now the conditional use has been granted um the the current setback, we need an increase. I believe it's of 20 in. It's u 1 foot8 1 foot8 point some
odd 1.7 1.7 feet um increase because now it's a dwelling unit. Um while there are some differences um in our findings and in staff's findings and I will say that um I did submit a revised narrative to the county this morning because the initial narrative that we submitted I had written in it that the prior variance had been approved. It was the prior conditional use that had been approved. So, I've submitted an updated uh narrative just outlining that the prior variance request on
the structure had been denied. However, um here we are today with a an approved dwelling unit. We need an extra 20 ines from the um from the setback. And so, um going through the criteria um we it is our position that special conditions and circumst circumstances exist. Um the parcel is a waterfront lot bounded by shoreline constraints, flood plane considerations and
uh a limited buildable envelope. Again, the structure is already there. Um the structure exists within a building footprint. Um it has been constructed and inspected by the county. Um, so we're not seeking additional encroachment, but just acknowledging the location of the structure. As far as um whether or not it's a result of our own actions, strictly speaking, you know, the owner did construct the building there. However, the need for the variance is a
result of the change from it being a structure to a dwelling unit. Um there would be hardship from strict application. So strict strict application of the setback requirement would create an unnecessary and undue hardship that would effectively prevent the use of this structure as a dwelling unit. because the building is already in place um with some prior approvals, enforcing a the current setback requirement would deprive the property owner of rights commonly
enjoyed by other MDR zoned properties, namely the ability to use utilize the structure as an accessory dwelling where otherwise permitted by the conditional use. Again, the conditional use which we've just been granted. Um the requested variance is the minimum relief necessary to allow the use as an ADU. No reduction beyond um this existing 4ft setback is requested. No expansion, additional encroachment or alteration of the building footprint is proposed. The variance
would align the ADU designation with the um already constructed setback condition and then consistency with the intent of the land development code. Um, it's our position that granting the variance is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the land development code and will not be injurious to the surrounding area or detrimental to the public welfare. Um, recognizing the setback for ADU purposes would not alter neighborhood character. It's not going to impact adjacent properties or increase intensity. Uh, the variance supports orderly development.
um respects reliance on the prior approval that you've just given us and um facilitates you know con uh flexibility and design consistent with the district. Um unfortunately denying the variance would produce an unworkable result of approving the conditional use but rendering it unusable due to the technical setback issue again of about 20 in. So, we are asking that you accept um our findings submitted in the revised narrative today. Happy to take any questions. Again,
you know, we've expressed a willingness to pay for up to four times, which I believe is the maximum the county can impose the permitting fees, and would ask that you grant the variance to allow the conditional use that you just granted uh to be in full force and effect. Board questions for Miss Bush. Mr. Chairman, will you have a vote um to accept her revised narrative for her case? I'm sorry. Say again. Um her she is submitting an amendment to her narrative and she we need to
accept it into evidence because she had that error on there. We need a motion on that. I make a motion that we accept the narrative or the the amendment to narrative. Motion by Ross. Second by Greg. All those in favor of the motion, raise your right hand. It's unanimous. Okay. Uh questions for Miss Bush.
U staff, would you go through the findings of fact? This is uh case V2026015490 cruiset way. Uh requested variance variance to the applicable right sideyard setbacks allowed by the ODC. uh we will go through all the criterion and finding of facts go straight to so criterion one special conditions and circumstances uh that exist which are peculiar to the land structures or building um the applicant is
requesting a varance to the required rightyard setback for the ex now existing uh accessory dwelling unit as opposed to the access accessory structure that was previously submitted. So the the ADU the dwelling unit right now it does not comply with the setback requirements uh applicable to the principal dwelling the main home that's on the on the land or lot right now. Uh the required and I'm just giving an example of the required setbacks right now in this finding facts. It should be the lot is 82 feet wide for a dwelling it should be at 8.2
two feet. Um had they came uh to the county uh at the time or previously and requested we are able to give front counter planners are able to give a 20% variance to that that would have taken them to 6.5 ft which I believe they got on the main dwelling on the main home when they were building that. Um and per their existing survey their sealed survey right now the 80 units at like 4.76 feet. Okay. So the land development code says 10% of the lots width no greater than
15 ft no less than five feet at the minimum. So that's why we're here. They're requesting this variance to be to comply with the dwelling right now. Um therefore the variance of like Miss Mayor Miss Bush said at 1.74 ft is requested which basically is in about 20 inches or so. special conditions uh the special conditions circumstances do not does not result from the actions of the applicant finding of facts special conditions and circumstances necessitating the
variance um in staff's view findings they are the result of the actions taken by the applicant therefore this criterion is not satisfied uh initially again it was submitted and built was supposed to be a garage and now which in fact it was not built as a garage it was built as a dwelling So that's why uh we find that it is the result of actions taken by the applicant. Uh criterion three granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this land development coder of the lands,
buildings or structures in the same zoning district finding the facts from staff granting the requested variance. It would confer with a special privilege by allowing development standards that exceed what is permitted for other properties within the same zoning district. Criterion four, strict application of the provisions of the land development code. Uh would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the land development code and would create an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. The need for the variance is the result of the actions taken by the applicant on
site. Therefore, the application application I'm sorry, of the land development code does not create unnecessary or undue hardship at as defined by the variance criteria. Criterion five, variance granted is the minimum minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building or structure based upon the criterion stated above the location of the proposed structure or the existing structure uh as submitted. The requested variance it exceeds the minimum relief necessary as reasonable use of the property could be achieved
without granting the variance. So you know I since the conditional use has already been approved for an ADU they can still achieve that uh even if the granted if the variance is granted or not. Uh criterion six granting the variance uh will be consistent with the general intent and purpose of the land development code and that such variance will not be uh injurous to the area or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Granting finding a facts granting the requested variance would be inconsistent with the general intent and purpose of the land development code and may have
adverse impacts on surrounding properties but it would not be detrimental to public welfare. Staff recommendations based upon the review of the land development code and the variance criteria the staff finds that the requested variance it does not satisfy the requirement standards and that's clusion staff found staff findings
questions from the board staff. Would you scroll back um to the variance? All right. If if I understand this right, it's it's starting to get complex here um to me. Um what would the setback have been if if the initial u request um was for a garage only or
structure only. So that would have been five feet. Okay. Five feet for just a garage or an accessory structure. Okay. and as a a uh accessory dwelling, what would that set back be? So, it would have been 8.2 ft because the lot is 82 ft wide. Again, it's 10% of the lot's width, no greater than 15 ft, no less than five uh whichever uh is less. So, it would have been 8.2 ft. Um, if they didn't
if they weren't able to meet that again, they could have come into a front counter planner and requested a 20% merit, which we're able to grant at the front counter of 20% that would have taken them down to 6.5 ft, which is they did grant that on the main home when they were building that, and we did grant them that, but again, at the time, uh, this was, you know, a garage and not a dwelling. though it would have taken them to 6.5 ft. So staff basically what you're saying
is if it had remained a garage that it would have been okay. Yes. Had it just if it's just a garage the setbacks they would have complied with the sideyard that right sideyard setback. Yes. Thank you. So let me get this straight. Um if if the initial um request was for a garage only
and then it was changed as per the previous um case um became a a a dwelling. Um, it seems to me that the applicant is using um or used the uh the structure to get uh the setback as much as he could and got it. And now with this request,
he's asking to change the setback some more. And is does that make does that make it that the structure right now is over the setback limit? Correct. So the structure right now as a dwelling unit is non-conforming. It's not meeting the minimum setback requirements. Okay, that's clear. question. Sure. Yeah. Could Could we scroll back down to the uh uh staff's recommendation, please?
So, um my understanding of the staff recommendation is it's a conclusion. What is the staff's recommendation as far as a request goes? As far as the request goes, he they don't they the variance they does not satisfy the requirements as far as a dwelling. That's why they're requesting the variance. They don't it's denied. I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you. Satisfied. Yeah. Thank you. Does that mean I'm confused now um since we let me and and and now this the thing
okay nonconformity does not mean that it cannot be no ADU. Let's let's be clear. Yeah. But but but but the nine of the it may I don't know how it going. It may impact the insurance all the others type of stuff. It does not say that they still because we already granted that permission but they would be set back whatever it is and it would be it would be a nonconforming ADU. Now, now, now it does not also it does it it does mean that it doesn't they created the hardship
but does it impact the surroundings was one of the criteria that those are things you have to look at. Those are things you have to look at. The staff's the staff's recommendation um was purely from a viewpoint of code of of the code of of the black and white language of the land development code only the technical requirements numbers and the facts as presented. What is what would
be the result if we if the board were to um uh not approve this request? I drew commentary on that. I the the building would have to be modified. Yeah. Um, so it's approved for for it to for it to be used as a dwelling, it has to meet the setbacks for a dwelling. Um,
our approval originally was for the setbacks for an accessory structure. Um, there would be modifications necessary either to moving the building to meet the setbacks or making it a garage. I mean it's just that that's the situation we're we're left with because we would not be able to get them we would not be able to get the management approval for that ADU and the setback requirements it does not comply we have to make modifications
whatever that may be this irritates me a bit um we saw on on the previous case that um it was questionable how the process or what the intent of the owner was, but the process was was correct and we we approved it. But now it it's happening again and it seems like to me that the client the the owner has put us in the in a bind. Um Mr. Chairman, Mr. Now there are
penalties. They're agreed. Now we got there are penalties. penalties you that that is your choice but there are penalties like code enforcement people I'm not trying to defend them at all just trying to put some logic behind it from a rational perspective and thinking critically people violate unfortunately and it's wrong violate our land use code all the time unfortunately doesn't make it right no that's why they come for the code enforcement if there's a code for assess pill
and they get it t down, remove or they pay fines. They had down or remove or they repay or they pay substantial penalties because of they they broke they are not I want to say broke the law but they did not adhere. So there's a consensus they will pay four times the fee. Does it make correct? No. But thinking ra from a logical perspective, not trying to defend them, just trying to be open and
honest, but that's my job to be open. I give you all of the facts. There are penalties that could be assigned and modifications can be made if you so and they say that they're willing to pay four times the fee. M Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. Um, it reminds me of what goes on in the dark comes to light. And you know, I'm very plain when I speak up here. I'm not all proper and all of
that. So, I'm just being real. They they met all the requirements in the last case and we're not on the last case. So, but I'm just saying that's why I supported the last case, but they do not meet the required standards on this case. And I'm going to stick to it. I'mma do what's right. and at the end of the night, I'm gonna sleep good and um I can't support this because it's not right and they don't meet the required standards and I'm not going to bend on it. So, that's just my opinion. Thank you. Other comments? I have one. I think the the staff has done an excellent job with this.
Thank you. this this is a complicated situation and I I'm a very ardent supporter of staff's recommendations in matters like this. So that's my position on it. Thank you. Other comments or followup questions? Uh I'm sorry. I just I I'm agreeing with everybody. kind of an ugly case, but um if we just approve it to become a dwelling, this variance now makes that last decision kind of
useless if we don't approve. Well, as I understood from staff, um they would have to modify the building, which I envisioned as chopping off a couple feet of it so that they do make the setback requirements. You know, I feel like if they had have been honest about it being a dwelling in the first place, well, maybe we'll say they maybe they did make an honest mistake, but you know, it just it don't sound right when you say you're willing to pay four times, you know, um the amount,
you know, to, you know, to do whatever. I mean, if you're willing to pay four times that amount, I mean, just modify the home or the building and just make it right because, you know, it doesn't satisfy the required standards. And I just can't support that. You know, I'm I'm sure some a couple of neighbors or maybe one that left out of here on the last case probably angry as I don't know what with me because I made a motion um because they met those standards. But I'm not
here to satisfy everybody or you know just cause somebody can throw a dollar at a fine and make it right. You know what about the people that can't throw a dollar at that fine and make it right? You know we have to be fair all across the board and this just does not meet the required standards and I just I cannot um support that. I just can't. If I Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. Um if I may just respond to some of um staff's findings and and some of the concerns of the board. Um you know,
as has been stated, the reason for the variance is because of the conditional use that we were just granted because of the use as an accessory dwelling unit. The structure already exists. Um, while I understand the idea that it's not the minimum if the property can be used for anything else, it is the minimum to use the property for the allowed permitted now of right conditional
use that was just granted. The reduction is the minimum. you have to have the setback reduced to be allowed to use reasonably as an accessory dwelling unit. You know, I don't know the cost that it would take when you talk about modifying the building to remove, you know, 20 in 20 in, you know, I don't I'm not a contractor. I don't know what that entails, you know, but you're if you're talking about demolishing a structure, obviously that's, you
know, quite a substantial hardship. someone would face over 20 inches when you're talking about, you know, moving walls or roofs or or whether or not it could have an overhang or if there can be nothing at all in that setback actually physically moving the structure. It's not a house on off on blocks or off, you know, offgrade. It's on a foundation. And so the exorbitant cost to do something like that. um while not um an issue in this matter the same way it was in the conditional
use hearing. You know, there's a willingness if we needed to record a private covenant and restriction to say no short-term rental, no I mean there's willingness to work with and you know have conditions imposed on the use. Again, that's not a technical criteria in the code. However, you know, to the extent that we can make it right, to the extent that we can establish that because of the conditional use that you've granted, this is the minimum because of the
conditional use, there is a hardship imposed by the code language, not by the applicant. Now, I understand the concerns over the history. Again, I wasn't involved. I don't know, you know, what decisions were made or what advice was given along the way to get us to this point, but we're here now and we have the permission to use it as a dwelling unit. And so a 20in variance to allow that use of the property um you know does appear to be the minimum. you know, we have offered
alternative criteria and you know, I believe sta staff can vouch for the fact that I, you know, typically fully support staff and we work well together. You know, I've worked with them for decade. I mean, it's been a long time. you know, as prior counsel to the county, very familiar with land development code regulations and the idea that the black and white is the only way to make the decision. You know, I would respectfully disagree with that and say that you do have some discretion like you do have the ability to say, you know, while perhaps the path to get us here is
not, you know, what we would have written at the outset if we could go back and do it over, we're here now and we have an existing structure here now. we have an approved dwelling unit use here. Now, if it makes a difference that we voluntarily deed restrict and say no short-term rentals or or something like that, again, that doesn't change the criteria in the code. But if that alleviates some concern over there's a nefarious we're getting away with something. Oh, now we've gotten away with it. We'll voluntarily do that to remove that concern to say look, this is, you know, it
truly is a structure. It's that was intended to, you know, when overnight guests come, sons from out of town come in to have them a place to stay. Um, and that's the only intent. You know, we've already filed that information with the county and recorded affidavits to to document that, but if we need to go a step further and deed restrict through a private covenant restriction that would run with the land to say, you know, this is the the purpose, yes, it's within the setback. Um, but the only reason for the difference is it was brought to our attention. Look, you're not,
you know, you need to correct this. So, we're here trying to correct it. And so, while, you know, I understand why you're taking a hard line and absolutely respect the difficult position you're in 100%. Um, respect it. You know, appreciate the hard work that you do in this situation. We are asking for grace and we are asking for you to, you know, make a concession or or make have a willingness to accept our findings and work with us. You know, you impel you tell us what we need
to do to to get the approval. Um because I believe that there is a path for you to say, well, they do meet the criteria and and we do find that the while is it an act that we asked for the dwelling unit? Yes, that's an act of the owner to say we want to be a dwelling unit. But is it, you know, should that rise to the level of being denied the variance because, you know, it was imposed by us wanting to convert what was previously a structure into a dwelling unit, you know, I don't know that
that's necessarily the true intent of the land development code not to grant permissions in situations like this. It's a very unique situation and it's a I understand it's a difficult decision. All right. Do we have a Mr. Montgomery present? He's gone. Okay. Mr. Chairman, can I can I comment um just just back on um what she she spoke on um as far as um putting it in writing, you know, um that there won't be any short-term rentals or whatsoever. Um according to the the last case, you
said that that's nothing that nobody can control pretty much. Um you get right, right? You can't. So, so the government, the county can't tell us to do it. Um, but but a person who owns property can restrict their own use. So, it would be a self-imposed voluntary um restriction that could be could be enacted to say, "Look, even though we have the right and and the law says nobody can tell a person who owns residential property that they can't rent it, if we want to, it's sort
of like an HOA or some entity, you know, if if it had gone into effect prior to or if everybody just voluntarily agrees to it, then then that can be um effectuated." And and I apologize if that wasn't clear before. I thought you meant whether or not there was something that the the county could do through the conditional use process to stop that. And there would not be the county couldn't impose a condition of a conditional use to stop it. All right. Thank you. I apologize if that was a clear I appreciate Willie. I go ahead. I don't know that. There we go. Um, my question for that is,
I mean, I'm I'm still leaning towards what we've talked about that this just does not fit the land development code through errors or mistakes. But at any rate, it in the event that we do place a restriction, how do we ensure that that is part of the title work so that whoever they sell it to that that conveys with that property into perpetuity? Correct. It would be recorded in the official records of um Escambia County through the clerk um with the property reference number
and so it would come up in any title search. In the same way when you purchase property in an HOA, the covenants and restrictions that put everyone on notice, this is what you can and can't do. Um it we would effectuate that. Okay. And in the event that the structure was destroyed or demolished or a percentage of it was destroyed in a storm, could it be that it could not be built back on its own footprint? I believe we could make that agree. I mean, I don't know that the variance typically would Yeah, if something destroyed by act of of of fire, um we we always try to get
it to comply by by those things. If it cannot, of course, and go back to the same structure, but if but if they want to put that in there, that those things runs with the land. Now, we don't enforce the land if we don't enforce those requirements. But that is something and they have and if they want one challenge covenants and restrictions they have the tendency to go before the court and stand as dire I would be willing to do that as director giants pointed out variances
are based on unique physical hardship on a unique piece of property so they run with the land um it could you know a storm could come it could disappear the variance still stays with that land. All right, we have another speaker. Um I I can't read this copy. Albert his first name. Albert Schwedzuk, please raise your right hand. 5490 cruise at Thank you. Do you solemnly swear
and affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth help God? Yes. Thank you. So I just wanted to clear our name of being called liars five times today by the person which which was so proud he owns 270 properties in the state and I know for a fact he don't even live on the kat way it's just one of his properties but when we when we when we start building this uh two buildings original idea was yes to have the main house and a and a
garage on the same property. When we started the building, we sold everything uh in New Jersey we has and we moved here full-time. Now, we ran out of the money halfway done. So, we has no option but move into that uh garage uh uh building uh uh in the meantime when we still finishing the main house right now. So that was the this is the this is the that's that's that's the whole story.
Now about this variance like in my understand in how I would see it as the next door neighbor is we're talking about the 20 ines uh difference of of of the border and uh as we was a garage building which is 12t high that building would sit exactly the same distance as it's sitting right now. So if we call it now dwelling, it's still same distance. So would not affect change anything
to that next door neighbor because the garage was built at four four five feet from the from the border anyway and it stays exactly the same way. So what I'm trying to say is the it was approved to be four five ft away from the border as the garage but right now after we changed that to the dwelling you know how how it doesn't make any sense you know like me being my neighbor looking at the garage wall garage wall what's called garage with a true windows or dwelling with
a true windows it's still 5t away. And if I going to have to move that uh rebuild this house 20 in, this is like a completely rebuilding the entire uh building. It's like, you know, we're never going to finish our main house. M and and and and and and and and members and we're now and and and the board board you do have discretion that sometimes sometimes the code is black and
white. But then that's why these boards are here for. Amen. To try to put some some grace if if there's grace to be given to try to to try to add some other alternative methods. That's the purpose of these book. Everything will always fit within a it should have in a in a perfectly square box. In this case, it was very complicated. It's very complicated. We have to stand by what the code
says. And sometimes we do like soft approaches because sometime the code is not as always as bendable appliable. We and and and it's that's why land use is very complicated per complex science. That's why these boards in place to try to add some soft skills. But y'all have overturned our decision before. Y'all have granted those things. Thank you, Mr. Thank you for always supporting the board. Sometimes grace and with these language it's it makes it complicated. I'm going to try
to defend them. No, I'm going to try to try to provide some logic and some and some and some the some purpose and give you some understanding. Yes, that's all I'm doing. Not trying to babe by nobody. It's still your decision. Sometime things don't always penetrate perfectly square box and I have to take my feelings out of it because sometime I wanted to. I totally agree with you
and grace. You know, we've talked about that many times before here and I do believe in grace. Um, but I do also believe that every situation in our lives are not one sizefits all and I still stand on my decision. I would not support this. I did support the other one because you guys met
every requirement and I did the right thing and I'm going to do the right thing on this one and I'm not going to support it because it does not satisfy the required standards. Just following up on Willy's comments, my understanding of the process is that our job is to make a decision based on the evidence that's presented. My understanding is staff's recommendation and conclusions are evidence. my understanding. So from a from a human from a
that aspect of it, uh I I have great compassion for this couple here, but that's not my job. My job is to make a decision based on the evidence presented, and that's what I intend to do. Any other comments? Ju just one more thing and I'm not going come prolong it but there have been a lot of decisions made in this county alone all over the world decisions and it has been too much not too
it's never too much grace but people been you know they been because somebody can throw a dollar at something and make it right all the time you know that's not even the case here you know I mean today with this particular case that's that's you know we have many cases and yes sometimes we do go against staff findings but this is clearly something that I I mean
I don't I don't want to be in today on this particular case that we're on right now and be responsible for something 10 and 20 years from now. I I'm I'm not going to do it. And I mean I I just do not support it. And I meant unless like like my colleagues say, you know, we're here based on the evidence to make this decisions. Unless you have some more evidence that clearly states you meet those required standards. You know, today is not a day where,
you know, today I'm I'm I'm just can't support this at all and I'm I'm done. Thank you, Willie. Um I'm I'm going to make some final comments also. Okay. Um does he open up the door for you? One thing we have to look at is whether or not um several years ago this board uh made the decision um to approve construction of of structure. Um and with that came the setbacks. if the
applicant would have asked that board to adjust the setbacks, lessen them, um would the board have approved that or would the board have said, "No, you have to meet our setback requirements." So now we come to today and that question is being asked again only this time um the structure has already been built and imposes on the setbacks and it's put the board in a position of um
of as Willie said um not only what could happen in the future Sure. But um would we have um we followed the the the um the law, we followed um code um and um we've been requested to um make a change in our previous decision. Um I've been on this board for five
years and um one thing that um Mr. Jones has mentioned over and over again is um sometimes there's there's compromise. Um and that's different than grace. Compromise is when um both parties um agree to um give up some things and and take others. Um there is no compromise um here as
far as I'm concerned. Um the applicant either gets the variance um or um the county says no um it it doesn't fit their criteria and I don't see any way of compromising um at this point. Um so um I'm in agreement with Willie that um this request um as per um the staff recommendation um does not
satisfy the required standards. One one additional thought that I have um I appreciate, you know, your statement that unless you have additional evidence to show um I would ask if the board would consider um delaying the decision. I mean, I can see the writing on the wall. You know, I can count folks who have spoken and um allow us time. the staff, you know, we submitted the conditional use criteria uh or application after representation that staff would support it. It was only very
recently um prior to the hearing that the staff came back and said, "Oh, by the way, you also need a variance." And so allowing us additional time to work with the staff to see if there if there is any other evidence out there, anything else that we can uh sub submit to supplement our presentation rather than having a decision today. Um if the board would consider allowing us to come back, you know, next month or the month after to to complete the process. For the record,
and she did ask me that and I did tell her for the record to ask the board. That's not my I want to be clear for the record. Okay. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, would that request require a motion and a vote? All right. Any other comments before we don't The only comment I would like to make before there's a motion and a vote is um I feel like that is fair. because today there is no evidence and I
feel like they they should be allowed the proper time that's that's needed to provide evidence if there is something um to come before the board and um other comments. So just to clarify though are are you are you suggesting withdrawing the application? No, not not necessarily withdrawing, but it would just a continuation of the hear. You know, we would come back. It would just be part two of today's hearing. We wouldn't have to go through the presentation again. If there there may
be nothing else we submit. There may be something we submit. There there may be some creative um solution out that we haven't thought about. There may be case law that I haven't found. Um but no, it wouldn't be a withdrawal. It would simply be delaying. You know, we we table it where we're at now. we come back and pick up where we've left off and your decision may be the same as as I feel like it's going. It it may be different, but it would allow us time to um and that consideration would be as I stated and I don't know, it was a couple weeks ago that that the county came back
and said, "Oh, you also need a variance and and we need your, you know, submission by, you know, in two days or something like that." So, um, it would just allow us a little additional time to to see if there's something else that we can can provide. Okay. Then, yes, I do believe that requires a motion. And also, I think for staff's sake, you should address who will pay for the advertising costs. Yes. Okay. To notice the the continuation, the continued hearing. And I have a motion to table um this case. I would like to make a motion to table this case at
this time and for the land owner to um um pay for all costs advertising or whatsoever. And um would this be on the next BOA agenda or um maybe the one after? I don't know what the deadlines are, but um March 18th. So, I make a motion to um table this item until March 18th um at the expense
of the owner. Do we have a second? A second. Motion has been made and seconded. Um all those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. And it is unanimous. Thank you. All right, let's get back to where we are.
All right. Do we have Um, new old business. I have a bit of uh new business. Um, please don't be shocked at this, but um, I have submitted my resignation. Um, I've been on the board for five years and I feel that's long enough. And um, I've I've really enjoyed um, being here even though we sometimes have very difficult um, situations to work with and can be stressful, but it's time for me to step down um, as chairman and
um, get off the board. Um, so as of right now um, I am off the board. Thank you for your service. Certainly. Thank you. As director, I've wor with you for many years. Mr. True. Um, we appreciate you for your consistency. We appreciate you for your service. I I can't I don't recall too many times where you have where you have not been present. you saying you you you you you helped
our staff become staff that need to be and looking at all of these. We appreciate you and I'm not a liar. We appreciate you for your service and we thank you tremendous. I appreciate the words. Um I too have um been um very pleased with with um staff's work. Um I know if if I think this job is difficult, yours is much more difficult. And um the fact that you have um given the board
the opportunity to make good decisions based on input um from you that we have a good working relationship and I hope that continues. Thank you much. Um thank you for your service. It's uh been great serving with you. Um, I'm getting a lot of wisdom from you. Um, trying to figure out now, do we make a motion for a new chairman now or we have almost everybody here? If you want to address that today, you can. Or you can wait. If you think everyone might want some time to consider
who may be nominated, um, it's it's entirely up to you if you want to address it now or later. Um, I' I'd like to address it now. I mean, I I agree. Honestly, I'd like to nominate Mr. Kirkland as the new chairman. He's the one with the most experience and probably the most temperament. I just want to say thank you to um all of you. Um this means a lot to me. I've been on the
board since um 2019 and we've seen a lot of um situations come before us and uh we've seen a lot of concern from the community and um it makes me excited when the community comes out and they voice their opinion whether they're mad, sad or happy and um you know we can't please everybody but u one thing that we're going to continue to try to do is uh follow the rules and um make this community better in the future um With that being said, um you know, I was the vice chairman. So
now, um correct. You know, I want to leave it in up to the board to decide um what we're going to do about vice chairman. Um is it legal for me to u make a motion for vice chairman? Well, uh well, that's that's confusing because now you're technically both um chair and vice chairman. So, I might leave that to someone else. Can I comment on it? Sure. Okay. Well,
I'd like to leave it to my colleagues um on vice chairman, but um I would like to comment on it. I'm not going to vote on it, but uh well, I can vote on it. Okay. But I won't make the motion on it, but uh you know, Rosie has been here with his coffee. I used to joke with him. I say, "Is that really coffee in there?" But it's coffee. But uh he has been here and um he has been faithful and um so that's that's just my suggestion. I'd like to make a motion that we nominate Ross as vice chair. I second that.
All right. We got a motion and a second. Um, all in favor. All right, this passes three. Well, it Well, he you can vote. You don't want to vote for yourself. I'm worried about that if you don't vote for yourself. Motion passes unanimously. I I got to work on that word arm, but y'all get it. But, uh, thank you. Thank you. But um so is there anything else any more um older um new business that we need to discuss before? I
will just say that the next meeting is going to be Wednesday, February 18 um with a minimum of four cases and I really hope all four of you will be here to make a quorum next month be I have uh Marty's position open and is being advertised. I have not received any applications. So if you know anybody that may be interested in this role, let them know to email me their resume. All right. Thank you. It's an atlarge okay position. Anything from you? Okay, that's it. Um,
this meeting is adjourned. Good job. It's awesome. You've done it. Good luck. Good luck to you, too. Thanks. Play for us. Sorry. surprise you. No, but I am surprised. But congratulations