Good morning everyone. It is 9:03 a.m. This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency. Um we have one member who has an excused absence. That's Jane Plameumber and another one who is requested to appear remotely which we'll accept here
in just a minute. But if you would please stand for the invocation and the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Um well, I'd just like to thank everybody for being here and welcome back to the summer and let's have a great meeting. Thank you. So before we go any further, could I have a motion please to accept Mr. S? Second.
There's a motion in a second. Is there any objection to the motion? Hearing none. Uh Don, you get to participate today and thank you for being here. Uh next item is an approval of the final agenda. Are there any corrections, deletions, any questions? If not, may I
have a motion, please? So moved. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, John. Uh there's a motion in a second and a second. Any objection to the motion? Hearing none, the uh final agenda is approved as is. Now we have meeting uh minutes from June 10th, 2025. Any
corrections or adjustments to those? So moved. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jim. Second. And a second. Any objection to the motion? Hearing none. That passes unanimously as well. Um next item is public comment. This public comment is
for anybody who'd like to talk about something that's not a case on the agenda. Is there anybody who'd like to say anything? Okay. Hearing This is going great so far. Okay. Yeah. Next item is the first of our
public hearings and I'll let Nancy read her um her make some comments. Make some comments and then I'll read I hope I don't jinx any of this. Um so thank you uh Madame Chair. So today on your agenda um you have one resoning,
one special exception and five variances. And all of these uh matters before you are quasi judicial in nature and this requires that your public hearing today comply with the procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in your land
development code. So, our proceedings today in these quasi judicial matters, they're going to be less formal than a proceeding before circuit court, but they're going to be a little bit more formal than the remainder of your meeting. We must follow some basic
standards of due process that requires that certain notices be provided to property owners as well as others in the community. that the staff must apply the correct standards and that your decisions are based on competent and
substantial evidence that will be presented to you today either in written or through oral testimony. Your responsibility today is to evaluate the testimony and the information for each of these quasi judicial items and then
draw a conclusion regarding whether or not the criteria that is in the land development code or in state law has been satisfied. So just pure speculation or an opinion that is not based on competent facts
cannot legally be considered by you in evaluating an agenda item. testimony by professionals who are qualified as experts before you in a particular area such as land use planning in Fort Myers Beach or engineering or surveying or
others that has been considered to be competent evidence by Florida courts as well as testimony by neighbors and residents who have fact-based information such as minutes, surveys, engineering reports, etc. or testimony
that they make to you today based on their personal knowledge. So members of the audience, those of you who intend to speak on any of these agenda items, please keep my comments in mind and when you come forward, please state your name clearly for the record whether or not
you have been sworn in to testify or not. I also want to remind the LPA that a unanimous decision by eligible voting members, which we do have a quorum and we do have eligible voting members, um to approve a variance, again, you have
five variances on your agenda today. That decision will be final agency action that is only subject to a request by anyone in the community for an additional hearing or review of the matter by the town council. if that
request for an additional hearing is received by the town clerk within 10 days of your decision today. Thank you. And so for purposes of expediting today's hearing, uh before we begin any of the public hearings on
these matters, we'd like to go ahead and take care of a few housekeeping items. First of all, I need to ask our town clerk whether or not the agenda items have been properly noticed pursuant to our land development code and state law. Oh, yes, they have been.
Thank you. And at this time, um, we have seven items on the agenda. Does anyone have a voting conflict regarding any of those seven items? Jim, none. How about you, Doug? No, ma'am. I have none, Jim. No. No.
Done. Don, no. Thank you. Okay. So, great. So, we definitely have a quorum present and we can proceed forward. At this time, if there is anyone in the audience who would like to present testimony, if you would please rise, raise your right hand and the town
clerk will uh administer an oath to you. So, this is any any of you who want to speak. Period. And you know, if you just think you might Okay. Yeah. Because you never Well, somebody's going to say something. You're going to want to get up.
There you go. Perfect. All right. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Okay. Thank you all. And just a reminder, when you come to the podium to speak, um mention your name and uh whether or not you've been
sworn in. So, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you all very much. The first uh case is DCI 20250181. And this is for 138140 Delmare Avenue. An ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, approving approving with
conditions or denying an application to reszone property located at 138140 Delmare Avenue. Generally identified as strap number 1 194624 W3100B
0150 Fort Myers Beach. residential conservation to or from residential conservation to residential plan development to allow construction of a two-story duplex above flood elevation and a deviation from section 34638D2
of the land development code to allow a porch and stoop to encroach 15t into the 25- ft street setback where a maximum encroachment of 10 ft is permitted for accessory uses providing for clar Verification is necessary, providing for
conflicts of law, scrier's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Okay. Who's our staff person? You, Judith. I saw Jason Green, but I guess he's not here. Okay, I'm gonna exparte. I'm sorry.
Party still off. Um, exparte, Jim. None. John? Uh, none, but I do live on Delmare currently. Okay. How about you, Doug? No, ma'am. Jim, none. I have none as well. Judith
Don. Don, anything? No. Okay. Good morning. Uh, my name is Judith Franco with Community Development. Um, this Can you all hear Judith? Okay. Okay. And I hope you don't mind. Usually I would stand at the podium, but No, this is better.
Otherwise, Okay. Thank you. Um Scott and Leslie Fier, the owners of 138 140 Delmare Avenue, are requesting a reszoning from residential conservation to a residential planned development to allow for the development of a two
family residential structure with a master concept plan and one deviation. Uh while the lot would not be eligible for a multiple residential dwelling like a duplex based on the parcel size, the applicant has shown compelling evidence that there existed two dwelling units
prior to Hurricane Ian. As per land development code section 34-32382D of the post- disaster buildback code, a property owner wishing to exceed the square footage limitations contained within the post- disaster buildback regulations may be eligible to request
additional square footage through a commercial plan development or residential plan development. The applicant is therefore applying to reszone the subject parcel um to an RPD with one deviation to construct a two family home with
additional square footage. The requested uh deviation is to allow a porch and stoop to encroach 15 ft into the required street setback where a maximum encroachment of 10 feet is permitted. Um the house is set back the required 25
ft. It's just the front stairs that encroaches into that setback an additional five feet greater than the allowance. Uh staff anticipates no adverse impacts or incompatibilities resulting from this requested um consideration. Um the
subject property has supported two units um we believe since 1954. Uh the property is part of an older residential neighborhood where several nearby properties uh appear to be non-compliant with the town's current street setback requirements. The
applicant would like to maximize the buildable area and is proposing to build back a duplex which was destroyed during Hurricane Ian with the additional square footage. The proposed two family structure is compliant with all the other required street side and rear
setbacks. Staff finds that the RP amendments amendment cross it out staff finds that the RPD as proposed here meets the criteria set forth in section 34-85B
and C and 34-2162 of the LDC which is specifically listed out both in the staff report and in the backup material to the ordinance. Uh and staff recommends approval with conditions. Um, we've listed the following three conditions. Typically,
for an RPD, you would be required to um provide a development order prior to your building permit. Because this is a simple um duplex and where a duplex would not require a DOU, we are removing that as a condition and only requiring a site plan submitted um at time of
building permit, which would be if not the exact um master concept plan you're seeing in your packet, substantially similar to that. Um as well as uh condition two, all state and local permits including but not limited to right of way storm water permits must be
applied to. Um that'll also be at time of building permit. And then three, failure to comply with any of the above mentioned conditions of approval for the reasonzoning request will render this approval null and void. Um the applicant is here with their designer. So if you
have any additional questions, um this is pretty straightforward, but we have to come about it in a little bit of a roundabout way because of the requirements of the code. There were two units there. They can prove that there were two units there. Um in in
rebuilding um the homeowner desired to build those two units larger. Um the code does not allow those um units to be larger by right through the buildback code, but it offers this opportunity um to apply for the RPD to get those two
units at a greater size. So this will come to you um and then we'll have to go to two town council meetings just like a typical um plan development. Thank you, Judith. Uh questions for Judith. Jim, none. Doug, none.
Don, any questions for Judith? No questions. Thanks, John. No, I'm good. Jim, no questions. I have none. Um, would the applicant like to say anything or comment on this? It's your chance to tell us about this.
Okay. So, the applicant's indicating that they have no no further comments on the case. Um, any public comment? Public comment. Thank you for keeping me on track today because you know I'm rusty. Uh any any public comment on
this? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Uh there are there any further comments or questions or discussion from the LPA? If not, may I have a motion, please? I'll move approval ordinance DCI 20250181
consistent with staff's recommendations and with the appropriate conditions allowed. Second. Second. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Jim and Don. Uh, thank you very much. Any discussion on the motion to approve with the conditions held uh within the um the
findings and conclusions and conditions held within the staff report? Hearing none, your vote. Jim I. Don I. Jim I. John I. Doug I I Congratulations. You're on to the next phase.
You're welcome. If it was all so easy. Congratulations. Thanks for building back. Yes. Thank you for building back indeed. Okay. The next case is a special exception SEZ 20250149
for 4750 Eststerero Boulevard. This is a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida. Approving approving with conditions or denying a special exception SEZ 20250149 to allow like to like replacement of two
tiki huts, decking, a fence, gravel driveway, and landscaping in the EC zoning district seawward of the 1978 CCCL line for the property located at 4750 Eststerero Boulevard, Fort Myers
Beach, Florida, providing for Scrier's era severability and a defective date. Um, exparte. Anything? Jim? None. Doug, none. Don, none. John, no. Jim, none.
I have none as well. Um, okay. Staff report. Thank you, Jason. Good morning. My name is Jason Smallley. I'm a senior planner with your planning and zoning department. So before you today is a special exception request for
a condominium known locally as uh the shores. Uh their request is to redevelop two tiki huts the uh development of previously existing decking fencing and uh gravel the end of a gravel driveway
which is as far as we can tell mostly used for um pedestrian traffic towards the beach area. Uh while the applicants have stated that they have evidence that the um the structures existed initially
in 1982 with the development of the structure. Uh staff can confirm with uh facing data that the uh structures themselves existed at at least as early as 1998. Um we can establish that through Lee
Property Appraisers um overhead aerials. So before you today is the request to rebuild those structures and those areas that were damaged. Uh they plan to wreck the two um the two tiki huts as well as some new fencing to further enclose the
area and they will be developing up to an existing um it's noted as a seaw wall but we believe it to be a uh a retaining wall there. Uh, one thing that staff would like to mention, well, uh, staff recommends approval with conditions of
this, uh, we can because we can establish that those structures did exist pre-storm. Uh, one thing I would like to note that in the staff report, one of the conditions of approval, uh, I believe it's number four states that there will be no work that is to be done during turtle season. U, so we've talked
with Chad. uh he understands the scope and where they intend to work and being uh where they are behind the existing retaining wall uh he is okay with removing that condition so that they would be allowed to work under their
normal permitting. Uh any limitations that would be placed on them by the state or any state agencies would still carry. Uh but we have through discussion we're asking that that condition be removed so that they can be begin work
as soon as possible. Uh staff is here for any questions or comments that you may have and I believe uh the applicant has presentation or the applicant has presence here. Thank you very much Jason. Do we have any questions for Jason? Anyone? Well,
um, yeah, the so you're, if I understood, you're saying the condition of approval number four, construction shall not occur during turtle season. You're waving that condition. That is correct. If the state or one of their jurisdictions decides that they do
need that done, that will be part of their permitting and they will limit it as such. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, do we have the applicant here? Would you like to speak? Darina, hold on one second. Josh, can
you hear her? Because it's a little Is she on? No. There you go. Hi everyone. My name is Serena Cantu. I have been sworn in this morning. I'm here representing the applicant Nancy Campbell and Brian Campbell. Um, and we
are looking for local approval for her to conduct the repairs on the property. Um, we are in the process of getting state authorization for this as well. And I'm um open to answering any comments from you guys. Thank you very much, Darina. Any questions for the lady?
None. I have one. Um, it just wasn't clear to me whether or not the f uh the fence was pre-existing because Yes, the fence was also pre-existing. Okay, thank you. Okay, Darina, thank you very much. No other questions. Thank you.
Um, we'll open the public comment. Anybody here to speak on behalf or in opposition to this? Seeing none, we'll close that. LPA members, any questions further for the applicant or the staff? I have just one quick one. Can I follow up on Doug's
question, Jason, one more time? Indeed. He asked about the turtle stuff. So, do you do we have the authority to wave construction restrictions at the local level for turtle pending the state saying it's okay? But do we matter in that regard?
Well, we matter in as much as we do have local requirements, but the local requirements in my opinion are really just restatements of the of the state's limitations. All subordinated state approval anyway. That's absolutely correct. If we remove this requirement, the state would still have the option without telling us
honestly. Um they could tell the applicant themselves that they would be held to those uh requirements. Just want to know that for future. Thanks. Thank you, Jason. Thank you, Jim. Any other discussion on this? If there isn't any, may I have a motion to approve or deny this request? Motion to approve
SZ20250149 4750 Eero Boulevard um to approve the uh special exception to allow like forlike redevelopment. John, how about with conditions including the staff Thank you. including
staff report with conditions including the one that's waved for turtle season including or excluding number four excluding the condition including the recommendation. Perfect. Is there a second for that motion? Second.
Second. Okay. Uh there's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Uh hearing none. Your vote John I. Your vote Jim I. Don, I Doug, I Jim
I I The motion carries unanimously. Good job. This is great. Okay, next item is a variance request 20250170
for 202 Crescent Street. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with conditions or denying variance 20250170 requesting two variances from land development code table 34-3 for the
property located at 202 Crescent Street, generally referred to as strap number 1 194624 W40150E0090 in Fort Myers Beach to vary 7.1 ft from require required 10-ft side setback and to vary 15 feet from the required 25- ft
water body setback to elevate the existing single family residence in the RM zoning district and providing for other clarifications is necessary providing for conflicts of law scrier's errors severability and providing for an
effective date any exparte don no don your voice is off but I think he's saying No. Sorry. No. No. John, anything? None. Jim? None. Doug? No. Jim? No. I I'm very familiar with this property,
but I don't have any had no contact with it. So, um, okay. Staff. Good afternoon. Uh, Judith Frankle, town of Fort Myers Beach Community Development. Um, uh, John Richard, uh, as represented by his agent, Cara
Stewart, um, the owner of 202 Crest Street, is requesting a variance, um, from the town's land development code. Uh, the subject property currently supports five single family residences, out of which three were previously elevated to meet current flood requirements, uh, and a fourth was
recently granted an administrative variance. Um, so they will be able to do the same. Um, the subject single family residence was built in 1952 and has non-conforming side setback of 2.9 feet from the south property boundary and a
water body setback of 10 ft as measured from the deck to the east property boundary. Um, that side setback if it had been uh set back at least five feet, they could have come for an administrative variance, but because it is less than five feet, they have to
come before you all. Um, so the applicant it's two variances under one one code section essentially. Um Truda, can you go back and explain that five foot thing? There's no discretion
on your part for that. It seems the five feet is the discretion. So in order to elevate if you if you want to elevate an existing home that has non-conforming setbacks. So the house is already there and you just want to raise it to meet the flood requirements. So
you have a safer, more resilient home. There are are minimums that you have to meet, five feet, setback being one of those. So then you would apply for an administrative variance, which is what the other um uh structure on this property has did recently to be able to
um raise it above flood when it is less than five feet because five feet is is kind of considered the the minimum typical setback you would have. um then they're required to come and ask for a public hearing variance.
And can you remind me what what was the actual measurement? 2.9 ft from the side setback. Okay. Seems like an awful lot of effort for 24 in. Okay. Go ahead. Um sorry.
Okay. Staff has reviewed the request for the two variances from land development code table 34-3 to vary 7.1 feet from the required 10- foot side setback um and to vary 15 ft from the required 25 ft water body setback to elevate the existing single
family residence in the RM zoning district uh and staff finds that the variances requested do meet the requirement set forth in section 34-87. um uh B and C. Therefore, staff
recommends approval with conditions of this variance application. Um approval of the variance does not give the applicant undeniable right to permit approval. Development or redevelopment of the property must comply with all other applicable requirements of the
land development code. Um if the uh LPA um wishes to approve this project through the recommended following conditions, um the variance shall only apply to the single family home as shown on the provided site plan. Demolition or substantial damage to the residential
structure shall render the variances to be null and void. The variance is limited to the subject property as a lot of record consistent with the legal description described um in the application. The variance applies to the vertical addition above an existing
single family structure at the subject property. Only any additional modification um or additional construction would then need to comply with applicable regulations or seek a new variance. Uh the variance applies to the modified setbacks of the south and
east property boundaries as shown in exhibit B. No other portion of the single family dwelling or accessory structures may be extended into a required setback. All to say is that the it's important to note the difference between the variance and a reasonzoning. The variance only goes with that structure. So if that
structure were to be destroyed or redeveloped then it would be a new process from scratch. The uh applicants agent is here. Thank you. Thank you very much Judith. Any questions for Judith? I just want to
add on to what Judith had said um in that this is the first of five variances that you have today and so your decision would be final agency action unless there is a request made within 10 days uh to the town clerk for any additional hearings.
Thank you Nancy Cara. Good morning Cara Stewart on behalf of John Rashard. We don't really have anything else to add. The structure as we mentioned was there since 1952. It's amazing that it's still standing. It's one of those oldtime hardy hearty
structures as as um some of you are very familiar with. Anyway, any any questions for me? I'm happy to answer them. You know, I I'm I'm just going to say, do do you find it do you if as we encourage people to solidify their
houses and whatnot, this I mean, I know John this this is a time delay for him, but what if it was someone else who this was going to be a makeorb breakak situation? I it just seems like there should be some leniency with regards to elevation. The house isn't going to move
anywhere. It's just going to go up. Uh, I don't know. Maybe that's something to think about and and talk about. I can make a comment on that. I mean, I wrote uh elevated my house in place in the footprint that it was in. It was conforming when it was built. It was
non-conforming because the setbacks were changed and town staff had to make modifications to the ordinances to allow me to do so for something that I thought absolutely should have been administrative. Yeah, like absolutely. There should have been
no reason for the delay. It didn't really impact my build back, but it's a step that really was unnecessary. Yeah. And it's a costly step to get here. It's a very costly step. If I can make one comment on that, I would happen to agree because when we first were looking at it, I first I
thought, oh, because I did the other one administratively and then when I got into it with truth, I'm like, no, wait a minute, I'm less than five feet. Um, if I can make the just the comment that an existing structure as as time has gone on, setbacks have been changing on the beach.
Perhaps maybe if if you ask us to get I'm a letter of no objection or something of that nature where you resolve those issues that might be helpful if we could then eliminate coming and making this additional step if there's something less than five feet.
I'm gonna bring this up later because I it just seems Yep. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, thank you very much, Carrie. You want Do you need to say anything else or you good? Any questions for Miss Stewart? Okay. Any public comment on this case in opposition or in
support of Thank you all very much. We'll close that. Any further discussion or questions for Judith or for Cara? Hearing none. May I have a motion, please, to approve or deny the request? I'll make a motion to approve variance
20250170 for 202 Crescent Street uh to elevate the existing structure in the same location with the uh uh provisions or uh conditions established by our staff
support. Thank you very much Doug and Jim. Any discussion on the motion hearing? None. Your vote. Doug. I. Jim I. Don I John I Jim I I motion carries unanimously. Thank you all very much.
Next item is another variance and this is for um 211 Oiggo Drive. This is V 20250136. a resolution of the local planning agency of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, recommending um approving
approving with conditions or denying variance VR 20250136 requesting one a variance from LDC section 34638D6 which requires accessory struct structures on corner lots to provide a
minimum of 15 side street setback for corner lots. with width from 50 to 75 ft. And two, a variance for land development code 341174B to allow an accessory structure
including a pool closer to the side street right ofway line than the principal building in the RC zoning district for the property located at 211 Oiggo Drive. providing for clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scrier's error,
severability, and providing for an effective date. Uh, any exparte, Don? No. How about you, John? No. Jim, none. Doug, no. Uh, Jim, none. I have none as well. Staff,
uh, good morning again. Judith Frankle, the town of Fort Myers Beach. Um, this is a variance application by Glenn Harris III, owner of 211 Osteigo Drive. Um they're requesting a variance of land development code section 34-638D6 which requires uh a 15 foot wide street
setback for corner lots um that have a width of 50 to 75 ft and a variance from land development code section 34-1174B which prohibits the location of an accessory structure including pools closer to the side street right ofway
line than the principal building in the RC zoning district. The subject property is 55 ft wide and 108 ft long. Um it is a conforming lot in the RC zoning district. Uh it is a corner lot. It's
actually abudded on three sides by right ofway although only two named streets. Um and what they are seeking to do is to place the um pool on the east side of the property. um which abuts a right of
way. That pool is in line with the neighbors pool um along Esteiggo, but because theirs is a it's a it's a corner lot and it's also sort of a through lot um they need these variances to put the
pool in that location. So the pool is um in front of the uh primary structure which is the house and the code prohibits you putting your your pool essentially in your front yard. In this case in by um in actuality it is it is functions as their rear yard and they're
going to put a fence around it to enclose it and use it um like a rear yard would. um but they need a variance for that setback and also for the location of the pool which is considered an accessory structure. Um staff has
reviewed the request these requests for variances um and found that the requests do meet the requirements set forth in uh section 34-87. Therefore, staff recommends approval with conditions of this application to
allow for the construction of a pool with a reduced side street setback of 10.7 feet situated closer to the side street rightway line than the principal building. Um, if the LPA were to approve this variance request, staff recommends the following conditions. One, approval
of the variance does not give the applicant an undeniable right to permit approval, development, or redevelopment of the property. must comply with all applicable requirements of the comprehensive plan and land development code. Two, the variance shall only apply to the single family home as shown on
the provided site plan. Demolition or substantial damage to the residential structure shall render the variances to be null and void. Uh three, the proposed fence and hedge in the right-of-way easement along Esteigo Drive is subject to approval by the town's public works
department. Um the town does not anticipate any um uh issues with that, but their their fence currently is outside of the line of sight triangle. They had to move it a little bit away from the street to make sure that there was visibility there for for um vehicles
in the right ofway. Um and there is an a utility easement along there that they will need to get approval for um at permitting for the the fence itself. Um but again, we don't anticipate any issues there. believe the applicant is here as well.
Thank you very much, Judith. Questions for Judith from the LPA? Anyone? I have one question. Um, go ahead, John. The um condition that says if the house is substantially damaged, it impacts this uh variance. And I'm kind of
wondering when we've seen houses that have been completely destroyed, but the pools are still recoverable, why we would make that condition. So typically with a variance it goes with the property. So um lots of times I
mean the if the pool didn't have a variance then the pool was existing we would allow them to you know get the proper permits to um you know reconstruct the pool in the same location. Um it's typical that the variance goes with the primary
because it's an accessory structure then therefore it's subject to the property, right? And you you can't get a permit for an accessory structure until you have a permit or you know you're building the primary structure. So you couldn't put just a pool on the property. You would have to also have a house. So they would go together.
Got it. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. is the applicant. You care to say anything? Stand up if you have any questions. Glenn Harris, um Blair Holmes were builder and property owner as well. So
she Miss Judith explained it very well and there's precedent on the street. I think seven of the eight other homes on the street are doing exactly what we have. So we just want to do the same. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Hold on one second. Let's see if anybody have any questions
for the gentleman. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here. We'll open the public comment. Is there anybody who'd wish to say anything in favor or opposed to the project? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment. Any further questions for staff or the
applicant? Hearing none, would somebody like to make a motion? I move that uh we approve variance 20250136 211 Osteago Drive with the three staff
conditions included. Second. Thank you, John. Thank you, Jim. Any discussion on the motion hearing? None. Your vote. Jim. Yes. John, I. Don, I. Doug, I. Jim,
I. And I'm I motion carries unanimously. Thank you gentlemen for being here. Next item is V202500089 21541 Wijon Terrace. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with
conditions or denying variance 202500089 requesting a variance from LDC section 34-6383D for the property located at 21541 Wijon Terrace generally referred to as strap number 344624
W1 0000001 0010 in Fort Myers Beach to vary up to 11.87 ft from the required 25 ft water body setback to build a new pool and spa structure uh structure in the RC zoning
district and providing for other clarifications is necessary providing for conflicts of law scriveners errors severability and providing for an effective date. Is there anyone who has any exparte? Don, no. John, no.
Jim, none. Doug, no. Jim, none. And I have none. Staff, good morning again. Judith Frankle, uh, Town of Fort Myers Beach, Community Development Department. Um, Mr. and Mrs.
Ruben, the property owners are requesting relief from land development code section 34-6383D uh regarding minimum setbacks to reduce the required setback of 25 ft to up to 11.87 ft to accommodate a proposed pool
and spa. Um this code section requires that all buildings and structures be located at least 25 ft from bay waters. The setback of 25 ft is measured from the mean high water line. Uh the pool and spa are proposed to be set back
between 19.9 ft and 11.87 ft. You can see on their submitted site plan they've given you um four different um measurements. Um the lot is irregularly shaped and so the pool and pool deck are
also um you know not rectangular. So there's four different measures they give, but the the maximum um uh reduced setback is the 11.87 ft. Um the owners have obtained building permit for
the construction of the new home at this address. They have also obtained a permit to construct a retaining wall at the property to stabilize um the pool deck and rear area. Uh and now they are seeking to construct a pool and spa. Uh staff have reviewed the request for a
variance um and found that the request does not meet the requirements um set forth in section 34-87 as the pool and spa locations and the proposed setbacks are the result of the applicant's design choices. Uh although
we note that the requested reduced setback does not seem to impact the abuing properties due to the irregular shape and situation of the subject parcel. Uh essentially staff's reach their recommendation. The criteria um
require us to look at whether or not the um the request is a result of the applicant's actions. Um and in this case it's uh appears to be a design choice um as it's a new home um and a new pool. These are choices made by the applicant
uh in this case. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the application, which is a variance of up to um uh to vary by up to 13.13 feet for a setback of 11.87 feet from the water
body setback to construct a new pool and spa. Um the applicant is here as well if you have any questions for them. Any questions for Judith on this? Don, just one. I I think I did I read it right? There's one that the that it
actually goes to one foot a setback of one foot. Is that correct? That's that's on their diagram. Yeah. On their diagram what they're showing that that's the amount they're varying by. It's it's actually a setback where where it says proposed it's 20 the
setback in that location is 23.91 ft which varies by 1.09 ft from the required 20. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. So that's confusing. Yes. The the the the the setback is 25 ft and the the
smallest setback that they're asking for is the 11.87 ft which is a difference of 13.13. Gotcha. Okay. Other questions. Thank you, Don. Other questions for Judith? I have a question. The setback as
measured is to the pool itself or the spa as opposed to the decking. Um correct. And I guess I'm confused by that because I had to get a variance and not a variance. I had to pull my decking back five feet in order to meet setbacks of
an accessory structure and it was the deck for the rear of my house. So I'm Was it pool decking or elevated decking? Um John, to your point, yes. Uh the the decking that we had reviewed on your house was elevated decking that was
attached to the home. Uh in this case, if the decking is less than 4 feet above grade, it is allowed to go essentially to the property lines. Uh provided that they give us all of the proper um swailing.
I believe I read somewhere in here this not to parse it too finely, but I thought this is a five- foot elevated deck. Uh so at final grading they'll have to show that they have four feet of stem wall exposure or less. So if they're if
their stem wall on their structural shows 5T that means uh at inspection they're going to have to make sure that they've regraded at least backfill exactly at least one foot to provide final uh elevations of four feet or less.
And that's why we have the experts. That's it. Any other questions for staff? Yes. Um, are drainage calculations and then uh overall lot coverage
uh dealt with at construction time or because it it looks like there's substantial coverage on this lot. Yes. So, actually I I neglected to read into the con the conditions. Um, but it is that is condition number two. property owner must ensure that they adhere to the neighborhood flooding
ordinance which is um section 6-14 for drainage and 67% maximum impervious requirements. The building coverage is only for the the primary structure or if you have an accessory structure but not the pool deck. Um so the the house can
be no more than 40% of the the lot area but the impervious service so that would be the the pool the deck the driveway and the house and anything else is maximum of 67%. So when they come for permitting they will have to show that on their uh drainage plan. So that's
number two. If I could read the other two conditions into this please. Um so one was uh approval of the variances does not give the applicant an undeniable right to permit approval. Uh development of the property must comply with all applicable requirements of the comprehensive plan and the land
development code in effect at the time of permit approval. Um three, the variance shall only apply to the pool and spa as shown on the site plan provided. Demolition or substantial damage of the structure should render the variance to be null and void was the same as the the previous.
Thank you, Judith. Further questions for staff. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here? Would you guys like to say anything? Good morning. Mark Harden, Harden Custom Homes. This is Hi, Chad Ruper. Good morning to you both.
We've been sworn in. Uh we appreciate your time and in hearing this. Um we could be here for an hour to explain to you how how we got here, but I'll give you the shortened a bridge version. He started our design process several years
ago, and one of the key important elements for this build was where the sun location was at the time that he would be using the house in the pool deck. And at that time, we were in early conversations with our seaw wall contractor. Um, and at that time, the
word seaw wall was in play, which affects setbacks and various other things. Late last year or early this year, we had a meeting with the with the folks at the building department when the project went from seaw wall to retaining wall,
which changed everything for us. So, we had an initial meeting and I have to say we build in 14 different municipalities at least. This is my starts manager. She handles everything for us. Um, you have a very fine building department. We
built several properties here and and they're doing a fantastic job for you. Very nice of you to say. Very nice folks. Anyways, we had a meeting. We went through the whole process when we changed from seaw wall to retaining wall. It had to do with uh the environmental gentleman that was
there, the planning folks. Uh we talked about the possibility of a variance. Um I believe that there was two or three other variances on that same canal already. Um, so the the expectations were high for us to be able to come in
here, present uh the facts. We were kind of shocked when when the initial denial came through. However, when the package was submitted, one key element that was not part of the package was if you're standing on the house
looking out over the canal that goes out out into the bay, there's a a nice couple that lives next door that has their pool home, friends of the Rubners. Um, they have zero objection and we actually added a letter to the packet.
It just came in too late, so you're probably not seeing that. Uh, but the neighbors are in fa in favor of us doing this, and they're the only ones that are going to see it. It's not going to block their view. It's not going to change their lifestyle one iota, unless you're
cooking steaks out on your grill over there. Um, so really, honestly and truly, the guy next door is in favor. I have a copy of the letter here. If it's not in the packet, I can I I don't believe it's in the packet. If you want to give it to the the town
clerk, Amy on the end, that would be Anyway, so we're here to answer any questions that you may have, but the the variance itself, if you look at the design, and I know it's hard to see on the paperwork that's provided to you, but there's such a small portion of the
pool that I designed comes around the house. The majority of the pool is in the back. It's conforming. It's when it turns the corner and gets narrow, it just doesn't get narrow enough. Um, and it's the the one corner sticks out because the canal comes around the
corner and kind of cuts it off. So, we're only asking for the variance. It's that one smaller section over there and then it has the pool deck next to it where the chicky hut is for the grill. and all those other things. With regards to the
coverage, our site work engineer will provide the appropriate uh calculations on there. We are in compliance. Um and he'll make sure of that when we submit u the application with the site plan to make sure that we have the proper coverages for that.
Thank you. Sure. So, it's been quite a process. you know, we bought our lot, I think, back in uh uh right during COVID, and so it's been uh been very lengthy. Um but, you know, the part of the the draw to this
lot essentially was where we could put our pool. And of course, growing up in the Midwest, um you know, we don't get quite the same sun and wanted to be able to make sure that we had a lot that we would be able to get some sun um on it. And so that's how we came up with the
pool design because of of how the sun comes through. So it was really important. Um and just the selection of this lot was really being able to do this pool and be able to put it into a place that that made sense. So I just wanted to share that, you know. Um and
so if you have any questions, be happy to answer the best of my ability. Mr. Rubner, could you just say your name for the record just so it's on there? Sure. It's uh Chad Rubiner. Thank you so much. You bet. Any questions for the gentleman? Question for the builder, please. Sure. First of all, thank you for doing
business on the island. Appreciate your interest and Sure. quality work. I want to make sure I understood your comments regarding the distinction between the understanding of building a seaw wall and ultimately building a retaining wall. In your mind, did that change,
encouraged evidently by our competent people, cause you to create a variance that wouldn't have been there if it was a seaw wall? That's my understanding. Okay, that's all I wanted to hear. Thanks. Is that your understanding as well, Judith? Say that again.
The change that was encouraged by our environmental environmental people to redesate the work they were doing along the canal or the bay from a seaw wall as they attempted to represent it to a retaining wall as they were encouraged to triggered the need for the variance.
Well, I guess I I would have to confer with environmental on that. Um, you know, they they would not be allowed to put in a seaw wall. The code does not permit that. They can only the retaining wall
is their only option. Um, the code does allow you to measure though that setback from outside of the seaw wall um to that mean high water line. So,
the pool is actually much closer to the that deck edge um than you might think at at other properties because they're measuring further out beyond that that retaining wall. Yeah, I'm more interested in the description designation and maybe Madam
Chair may want to take this one up earlier later too, but um you say they wouldn't be allowed to have a seaw wall. So, yeah, we don't approve seaw walls. Therefore, we they mean
I see seaw walls being so there's a difference between a seaw wall and a retaining wall, right? So, the retaining wall is permitted and that's what they're they have a permit for and and that's what they're doing now. It has to do with how it's constructed. Um and they're doing that
essentially to secure the the site and make sure it's, you know, usable for, you know, many many years to come. Um the code prefers natural slope into the waterway like mangroves
or natural um so a seaw wall would would not be permitted. I'm not sure whether they would be able to get a variance for the the Well, that's okay. I don't want to take you down the rabbit trail, Madam Chair. I asking because your premise earlier today, this is a lot of work again. Yep. For a description and designation
um that may be in time and money, but it doesn't ultimately influence how I feel about supporting it. But it is something for us to look at administratively so it doesn't trigger this kind of body's work and therefore the downstream effects for everybody. So, I'll leave it with that.
Thanks, Jim. But this definition actually goes to the heart of whether there's a hardship or not. Totally. So I think it's important for us to understand. Thank you. Why we can't have a seaw wall and why it
has to be a retaining wall. suit and why a company I guess told them that it was going to be a seaw wall when they initiated it if in fact there could never have been a seaw wall. There you are, Jim.
So, two things I just conferred with with Jason who can probably explain this better. This has to do because it's on a natural water body, not a canal. So, and the canal is man-made. Um, and so there's different rules there because
this on on a natural water body and they did not have a wall there previously. It was it was rip wrap. Um, which is, you know, stones in a builtup embankment there. That's why they can't do a seaw wall. If they had had a seaw wall previously, we likely would have allowed
them to uh rebuild. Or if it was on a man-made canal, then the rule differs. Could I ask you guys a question? How how far into this did you discover the seaw wall retaining wall glitch?
Oh, can you come up, please? That's okay. We just have to have you on the record. Sworn in. Yep. And were you sworn in? I was not sworn in. My name is Kathy Leslie. I'm the smarts manager. Put Put your hand up for a second. There you go. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Now, tell us tell us your name for the record. Cat Lesie with Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you as well. Um, this process, as Mr. Rudner stated,
started back towards the end of CO. Um, I would say the design process took about a year and then I'm trying to find the dates. I didn't know this question was going to come up. That's okay. It doesn't have to be precise. Just more more or less. I want to say I started this process easily
almost two years ago and that's just the permitting after the design phase and everything. That's me going into the building department having said specifically the seaw wall versus retaining the seaw wall that started right out of the gate because right out of the gate yes ma'am because when I permitted the house I in tandem permitted the rightway
and in tandem permitted the pool. The poll was rejected immediately based on this and I met with Eli uh Chad who was the environmentalist and one other young lady I can't recall her name um but we had a meeting with our civil engineer
myself and Mr. Harden to discuss like you said the difference between a retaining wall versus a seaw wall. We originally had the seaw wall on our site plan and that's what kind of kaibabashed everything and started that conversation.
Okay. I have a question. So if you had a would the seaw wall and the retaining wall be on the same alignment or are they different or is the seaw wall on the mean high water line? If you if you drove out to the property right now and you walk around in the
dirt, you're going to see chunks of concrete put in the ground with a concrete cap on top and you say, "Oh, they just put a seaw wall in." Because that's what it looks like. It's just not out where a seaw wall goes. It's the same damn thing. I see. It makes zero sense. So, when we started
this process with the Seaw wall company and we're working with the salesperson and we give her all of our business over the years, millions plus just in referrals. We went back and we relied on their information that it was a seaw wall. Well, our site engineer took the
information that we got from them and created the site plan with the setbacks from the face of the seaw wall to the inside of the pool where the plaster meets the water. That's where your setback is. We are in compliance. And then we're going through the process and something inside of that seaw wall
company changed from seaw wall to retaining wall and we were not notified by them. They didn't say anything to us. Shame on them. So, they went months and then got their permit, did the whole thing. All of a sudden, now we're getting rejected
because it's a retaining wall and it doesn't meet the setbacks. And so you can see where the mess happens and we're told you can't put the seaw wall. This property is partially on a canal and then it wraps around and it faces the bay. If you stand there and look and
we tried to find aerial photos of when that was dug, that was dug out and the spoils are on the outside. This is a canal by all intents and purposes. However, it's overlooking the bay, so it's natural water body. This is not. It was flats. So, in the old-timers you talked to, it
was flats. They dug that out. But we tried to go down that rabbit trail and got I think we finally got you energized on this topic. Seems anyway. So, when was the existing retaining wall built? They they literally are just finishing it now. It's been since December,
January. And then right it's been a long this has been a long hall and it wasn't it was initially intended to be a a seaw wall initially. Yes. Don't you have they have the same setback different setbacks from the seaw wall different the setbacks from when you put
a retaining wall in you got to go back out to the mean high water line. Okay. When you put the seaw wall in the setbacks are shorter. So I see. So if it had been a seaw wall you wouldn't have to ask for those variances in the pool. Could you have built the seaw wall at the mean water?
They wouldn't let us. Okay. Because there was one there before. This is a virgin lot. There was nothing there before. Don, you had a question before. Do you still have it? No, I think I think I got it. I mean, I'm very familiar with this lot. I actually looked at it when you guys
bought it, but um so yeah, it was it was just natural before. Um and yeah, it's unfortunate, but you look at the design here. It's a seaw wall. I mean, I understand we're calling it a retaining wall, but Exactly what it is. Yeah. Tiebacks and everything else that you don't always have on a retaining wall.
We're learning more. Was your question answered? Yes. Okay. Um, uh, any other questions for the applicant? Anything else you feel compelled to put on the record? The only thing that I would like to add, come back. Come back, Cat. Thank you.
Is that it was in the um denial from the county, it was recognized that there were no hindrances, no environmental tax, no nothing. So, this is just a matter of land development code versus our property. Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here. Thank you.
Okay. Any further qu uh is there anyone here who wishes to testify in support of or opposed to the project? Seeing none, we close the public comment. Any further questions for the staff or the applicant? Hearing none, I'll make a motion. M.
Thank you, Jim. Move approval of V 202500089 21541 bag on terrace resolution um and add the um conditions that staff has recommended. Should we recommend approval for this?
Is there there's a second? So there's a motion and a second for the for the uh project. Is there any discussion on the motion? I I was uh initially supportive of the staff position, but after hearing the
testimony that the hardship really wasn't created no by the applicant, was created by the process, maybe an engineer and a seaw wall company. So, um I'm going to support this. I I I I agree completely. And and could
I just ask the question so it's on the record that the seaw wall and the retaining wall function the same serve the same purpose? I am not in this case I think the answer is yes. I I'm not an engineer but largely the
the difference that I've come across is just how embedded the panels are. the seaw wall even having tiebacks and and dead men generally is developed much less deep than an actual seaw wall panel would be. Now what's the reason that
that became a point of contention in the code? I couldn't say. I wasn't here when that was written, but that may be a discussion about whether those uh limitations are still relevant and I would encourage that uh that discussion along with environmental staff. Thank you very much, Jason. Okay,
there's a motion and a discussion. Uh, anything else for anyone? Well, I'd just like to make a point though that on natural bodies, i.e. the bay, there may be a good reason why we would want rip wrap
and natural as opposed to building seaw walls at that at that water line. I just like to make that point because while I as Jim um and you madam chair I was originally very much questioning whether or not
this should be allowed I think that based on what I've heard I'm 100% in support of it but I'm not sure that we throw the baby out with the bath water on this. Yep. That's all. Agreed. I agree. It's just being consistent in my mind. Obviously you're down in Naples Bay.
you've got river up the entire way and 30 miles an hour down the canals and all that. It's a different approach and I don't think we've aligned it that way. Y but I don't think the applicants ought to be punished for our confusion in that regard. Agree. I have a I have a question for staff. So
do what is the setback from a seaw wall for a for a uh engineered pool? Yeah. it uh if on seaw walls you'd be talking about a five foot minimum setback along foot setback and then it would be 25 feet to a
natural um water body. So a mean high water line which is what you would uh measure against in instances of rip wrap. So it's still 25 ft. Well, it's just a matter of where where your measurement point begins.
That's right. So on a standard canal lot, Doug, it would be five people. That's right. Five people. Okay. Right. Okay. There is a motion to approve and a second. Any other discussion? Hearing none. Your vote. Jim I. Don I.
John. I. Jim. I. Doug. I. I. Motion carries unanimously. Go build that thing. Thank you very much for your perseverance. Interesting. That's lovely. Okay. The next item on the agenda is a
variance request V 202500075 for 5236 Aero Boulevard. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with conditions or denying variance application 202500075
for the property located at 5236 Astero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, strap number 334624 W100206280 for the following three variances. One, a variance of five feet to allow a front setback of 20 feet where 25 ft is
required. Two, a variance of 15.4% building coverage to allow 55.4% building coverage where 40% is allowed. A V three a variance of 6.3% imperous surface area to allow 73.3%
imperous surface where 67% is the maximum allowed for a single family home. Providing for other clarifications is necessary providing for conflicts of law scrier's errors severability and providing for an effective date. Uh, any
exparte? Don, Don, he's in a little box now. Yeah. Sorry, I was on mute. No, no, export. How about you, John? No. Jim, no. Doug, no, ma'am. Jim, no. I have none as well. Uh, staff report,
please. The applicant, Zeu LLC representing with the Abdari residents and their agent. the neighborhood company requests relief um from the three variances um which just
went over in the ordinance title. Um the intent is to build one single family home at the site. Um the proposed single family residence will have a footprint of 1,778 square feet which includes a raised pool
and pool deck. House will consist of three floors, two of which will be habitable. Uh prior to the storm, the single family residence and accessory improvements on the property totals about 1,210 square feet uh without a pool. Uh the
parcel does not meet the minimum dimensions and size for a lot in the RM zoning district. This is an older uh platted lot. Uh a minimum use determination was obtained for the property to allow for this construction.
Um the small non-conforming size is a condition of the property which was not caused by the applicant. Uh additionally, there is an access easement existing along the north side of the property that does not seem to provide access either for or to the
neighboring properties. Um uh there's a number of easements that impact this particular parcel. Um, typically during staff review, we consider access easements that are going to have vehicles driven on them as an imperous
surface because even if it's made up of of gravel, sand, crushed rock, just due to the impaction over time, it becomes impervious. So, um, that led to the further constraints of this site. Um
the location of the 1978 um coastal construction control line was put in place after the original platting of the subject property which reduces the buildable area for the single family home. Uh hurricane Ian destroyed the original home that was constructed uh
prior to 1978. Um the requested variance will allow for a 20 foot reduction from the required 25 foot front setback that represents a dimminimous variance to allow for the reasonable construction of a residence
that is about 54 feet deep and 33 feet wide. Uh that's one of the questions in the criteria is is this a dimminimous request? Um and staff believes that it it is due to the this footprint of the home that is um being proposed. The
requested front setback of five feet will provide adequate separation to allow vehicular access to the residence through the adjacent 10 foot private road easement. Uh the new construction is designed for two parking spaces below the residence to accommodate the
required parking for the site. Uh in the staff report as well as backup material for the uh ordinance itself is a full uh review of all of the criteria for each of the three variances. Um staff has reviewed the request for variances
um and found that the variances do meet the requirements set forth in section 34-87. Um the recommendation considers the existing conditions at the site were not due to actions taken by the property owner and that the variances do not appear to create a negative impact on
the surrounding properties. Therefore, staff recommends approval with conditions of this application. If the town's LPA recommends approval, town staff recommends the following conditions of approval. One, approval of these variances does not give the applicant an undeniable right to permit
approval. Development of the property must comply with all applicable requirements of the comprehensive plan and land development code in effect at time of permit approval. Uh, two, the property owner must ensure that they adhere to the portion of the neighborhood flooding ordinance, land
development code section 6-14, that requires the property to be able to maintain 1.6 in of rainfall on site. This will be reviewed at permitting. Uh, this is added specifically because of variance number three in the request.
Um, as we talked about earlier, um, the maximum uh, impervious surface permitted at a lot is 67%. Um and so the other 33% is intended to be open with landscaping. Um and that is
to accommodate uh rainwater storm waters. Um because of the constraints at this site, they are not allowed to one um count the area seawward of the coastal construction control line as
part of that um pvious surface even though it is sand and will be pvious. They cannot count that per our code. Um and additionally they have that easement that is not does not seem to be actually going to be used as access to a
neighboring property. Um and we discussed potentially them seeking to to remove that easement at some point in the future, but we would have to count that additionally as an impervious surface. So staff found it their their
request their um for variance three uh reasonable requests, but we're still asking them to comply with the intent of that neighborhood flooding ordinance. So through other means, they will be able to capture on-site the storm water. um which is that one maintain that 1.6
inches of rainfall on site. They have consulted their consultants um and feel that they're going to be able to uh meet that requirement. Uh the third condition, the variance shall only apply to the structure as
shown on the provided site plan. Demolition or substantial damage to the structure shall render the variance to be null and void. Um the applicant is here. They have a presentation. Um, I can also answer any questions. Are there any questions for the staff?
I I have one. Um, I didn't do the couchs myself, but if the driveway easement wasn't included, would it become conforming? I'm not sure it matters to me because of the coastal construction line, but just as a matter of interest,
uh, I think it was still pretty tight. It was close but not quite. Um, and part of the reason I ask this is, um, once again, my own personal, um, experience where we're requiring people to build
quite deep ditches on our properties in order to capture rainwater. And um, and I understand we certainly don't want to be flooding our neighbors. 100% agree with that for a landlocked lot
uh that is surrounded on all sides by either neighbors or a street. Um, you know, here we have a beachfront lot where so much of the land is not able to be part of the calculation.
And I, for one, would feel badly about making somebody dig a ditch in their sideyard to capture rainfall that's just going to go to the beach. Personally, um, and I understand it's constraint of
the code. Um but that's my personal opinion on this. Yeah. So the I mean as you as you said the code it's one code this neighborhood flooding ordinance for everybody. Y um and I believe that their their
solution here is actually not swailes but there's they have an engineered system. Um your your point is well taken. Sand is highly permeable. Um, so I guess it's another one of those we
should bring it up as part of the code review, but I just wanted the point to be taken. That's all. I I had a couple of questions. The 10-ft easement has not been vacated. Correct. Correct. It has not. So there's been no effort to
eliminate that so that that calculation would be adjusted. Right. Um my understanding is that's probably a lengthy process and I'm not I don't know how many um property owners would have
to sign off on that because generally an easement you know there there's variety of property owners who have a right to no I I understand there's a process but it hasn't been taken care now the building coverage um
the maximum is 40% is that correct Yes. And they're asking for a deviation to go to 55.4%. Yes. And that is a result really of taking a
1,200 square foot house pri prior to Ian and now making it a 1700 square foot house. Correct. Yes, it it is. The the house is bigger. I mean, and now it's going to be, I believe it was one story, and now it's going to be two stories above flood, so
a three-story house. The um part of the the footprint though that we're considering is the pool because they have a raised pool um which is it's going to be better for the the homeowner and it's going to make that pool more
resilient. But now that that pool becomes part of the that footprint uh of the house at ground level. It would not have been correct. That's right. the um the drainage. Um
is there was there a statement there that they didn't want to do drainage calculations because of the cost before they got the approval? No, I mean uh they don't have to submit that that drainage plan now. they will have to submit it at permitting, but um
I believe the applicant has has reached out to their designers and has um is confident that they're going to be able to meet that requirement. And on a uh golf fronted lot,
does the storm water go towards the body of water or does it go towards the street? Well, I guess it would depend um on if there's a slope there. I'm not sure what the the grading there. I mean, there's an
easement, but there's not a true right ofway. On a right ofway, you know, like if you're on a stero boulevard, there's a crown and then there's, you know, it slopes down slightly to either side. Um, but this is not a proper right ofway. So, I imagine that doesn't exist. I mean, usually with these these access
easements, it's sandy or gravel or or some kind of crush shell. Um, if it's maintained, it it depends. So, they're probably um it it depends on the slope of the property. But right there, beachfront, it it's without seeing a
soil report, it's probably pretty sandy. Um, and any kind of open sand is going to be highly permeable. That's just the nature of of the material. But I can't tell you exactly which way the property slopes. I mean, I can guess, but um I don't have a, you know, grading
elevation. Okay. Thank you. Are we on the staff? We were on staff, too. Okay. Excuse me. Did we do exparte?
I don't know. Jim was in charge. be here. Don, do you have a do you have exparte on this case? No. How about you, John? I don't, but I'm very familiar with the property because I used to live on Aita Pescadora and that was kind of where our
access was. How about you, Jim? None. Doug? No, ma'am. Jim, none. I have none as well. Okay. Um, any other questions for the staff? Patrick. Okay. Good morning. My name is Patrick Vaness.
I am a certified planner with the neighborhood company. Uh before we get any further, I will preempt any of your questions and tell you how I feel. That a boy. So today I come to you refreshed and
relieved. Refreshed because we had a nice uh summer hiatus. Um, we had a month off and relieved because my kids are in school and the first day yesterday was mayhem. So, today was much better.
What school are they in, Patrick? Uh, my daughter is going to Fort Myers High. My son is at middle school at Cypress Lakes. That's where I went. Oh, very exciting. Um, so, so, um, I would like to submit our
PowerPoint into the record. However, I will forego the formal presentation. Um, I I do want to bring up two little things on your summary sheet for the um the description. It talks
about a front setback of 20 feet. It's actually a front setback of five feet, a variance of 20 feet. Um I I think in the rest of the report and staff's analysis they do uh identify that correctly but
the summary is incorrect. So just a correction there. Um also just to quickly um summarize what we're doing is this is a gulfront property uh beachfront property that is simply trying to
rebuild after being destroyed by the storm. Um, it was built in 1952. At that time, it was a legal uh construction that met all requirements. As you guys know, rules and regulations change over
time. Uh, and if if it wasn't for those changes, we wouldn't be here today asking for these variances. However, uh with the 1978 coastal construction control line, uh our lot which is a quarter of an acre is about cutting
about half. And uh then when it comes to the calculations for lot coverage and pervis impervious, we can only use half the lot for our calculations. If not for those regulations, we would fully meet uh requirements. We would be able to
provide a sufficient street setback and we would um just just for comparison's sake instead of asking for variances on the lot coverage and impervious on the lot coverage we would be at 27.4 if we were allowed to calculate the entire lot
and on the impervious area we would be at 36.3 again if we could calculate the entire lot. So, with that said, uh we have reviewed staff's uh report. We concur with their findings. We agree
with their recommendation of approval. And as a Collier County administrator always tells his staff, be brilliant, be brief, and be gone. And I am done. Patrick, could you address Jim's
question about the um the storm water? Um we have had an engineer look at it. Uh they feel confident from a design standpoint they will meet all requirements. Um however if it wasn't for strictly having to meet
the code we would have ample pvious area and more you know about half the property is sand and as staff mentioned that's very permeable but we will make requirements the engineers looked at it we will comply with that and we're okay with the conditions that staff have uh
recommended. Okay any questions for Mr. Vaness Patrick, why did you add 131 extra pages to our pocket? You know what's funny? The the um Because you can I've also noticed that some of the stuff
was in there multiple times. I'm not quite sure. Yeah, I was scratching my head. I was scratching my head on that one also. I'll withdraw my question. Longer question or longer document, shorter presentation. I like the tradeoffs. Fine. Any
any other questions for Patrick? Don, you have anything from up there? I think that means no. Uh, no. Okay. All right. Uh, thank you, Patrick. Thank you. We'll open the public comment. Is anybody here to speak in favor or
opposed to the project? And seeing or hearing none, thank you very much. We'll close the public comment. Any further questions for staff or the applicant from the LPA? And if there are none, may I have a motion, please, to um to
approve or deny this request? I'll make a motion to approve um variance uh 20250 5236 of Sterile Boulevard. uh and uh with the uh conditions of
approval established by staff. Thank you very much, Doug. Is there a second for that motion? Second. Thank you, John. Any discussion on the motion for approval? Hearing none, your vote. Doug, I. John, I. Jim, I.
Don, I. Jim, I. And I. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. I'm glad you're feeling uh refreshed and revived and relaxed and all the rewards. I'm glad you'd be gone. Uh the final case on our agenda today is
uh variance request VR 20250146 for 452 Eststerero Boulevard. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with conditions or denying variance 20250146
requesting a variance from LDC section 34 table 343 for the property located at 452 EO Boulevard generally referred to as strap number 244623 W10060D.025F 025F
in Fort Myers Beach to vary 15 feet from a required 25 foot front setback street setback and 12 feet from the required rear setback to build a new single family home in the RM zoning district and for providing for other
clarifications as necessary for conflicts of law scrier's errors severability and providing for an effective date. Is there any exparte? Don, sorry, I keep forgetting whether I'm on or off mute. No, no, exart.
Okay. How about you, John? No. Jim, none. Uh, Jim, none. Doug, none. And I have none. Uh, let's have the staff report, please. Thank you, Judith. Judith Frankle, um, town of Fort Myers Beach, Community Development. This is an
application from LAP FAM Investments number two 452 and their agent Cara Stewart uh to request relief from land development code section 34 table 343 for setback requirements in the RM zoning district resulting in a 10- foot
setback from the front property line where a 25- foot setback is required and an 8 foot setback at the rear property line where a 20 foot setback is required. Um, the property owner is seeking to construct a new three-story home on a non-conforming lot. Previous
home destroyed during Hurricane Ian was a one-story structure with two bedrooms, according to the property appraiser. Uh, the footprint of the proposed structure is larger than the previous home by approximately 318 square feet. A portion of the increase is to accommodate the
access stairs and elevator to um the habitable levels above blood. Uh, the subject property is non-conforming. As I said, it's 50 feet deep and a and 65 feet wide. A home built to the required front and rear
setbacks would result in a 5- foot wide home, which is not feasible. A variance is necessary in this case to be able to accommodate the single family home. Um, the requested setback results in a 32 foot wide home um which staff feels um
meets the this uh criteria. The applicant is not requesting a variance for building coverage as the house is designed to comply with the maximum 40% allowed uh building coverage. Staff has reviewed this request and found that the variance request does meet the
requirements set forth in section 34-87 um as reviewed in the staff report. Therefore, we recommend approval with conditions of this application. Um and if the town uh LPA recommends approval for the variance, the town staff recommends the
following conditions of approval. One, approval of this variance does not give the applicant an undeniable right to permit approval. Development of the property must comply with all applicable requirements of the comprehensive plan and land development code at the time of permit approval. Two, the property owner
must ensure that they adhere to the neighborhood flooding ordinance, land development code section 6-14 for drainage and 67% maximum impervious requirements. Three, the variance shall only apply to the structure as shown on the provided site plan. Demolition or
substantial damage to the structure shall render the variance to be null and void. Uh the applicant's representative is here. You have any questions? Thank you very much, Judith. Are there any questions for the staff on this? Okay, Cara.
Carara Stewart, I don't really have much further to add. The lot is a small lot, 50x 65. We've oriented it relatively similar to the property that we have obtained a variance for on adjacent to it. Um, any I'm here to answer any questions
you may have. Any questions for Miss Stewart? No, not here. Anyone? Thank you very much, Karen. Thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of or opposed to this project? Hearing none, the public hearing is now
closed. Uh any further questions for the staff or the applicant? Hearing none. Is there a motion from the LPA to approve or deny variance request for 452 Eststerero Boulevard? I'll make a motion to approve
variance 20250146 252 for 452 estero variance uh along with three uh staff condition. Thank you Jim. Support. Thank you Jim. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Your vote. Jim.
Yes. Jim. Yes. Doug. Yes. John. Yes. Don, I saw his lips say yes, but he didn't. Yes. Must be a verbal acknowledgement. Don, that's it. Um, was that Yes.
Yes. Needs to He's nodding. All right. So, I I um I also support the motion. It carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Um Nancy, I just Patrick, hold tight because I just want to circle back to um the previous varants. There were actually three variances in that
request. Did they need to be addressed individually or was the motion sufficient for the three variance requests held in V20250075? That is a a very good question. Uh we did it correct. We did it correct. Okay.
Um and I've been working with staff to basically set forth um different findings for each one. That way, in the event of an appeal of that variance, a reviewing court might approve in part or
deny in part. Um, but I'm okay with you packaging uh multiple variances requested in one variance application. Perfect. Thank you very much. All right, we'll move on to the administrative agenda. Um, the first item is LPA
members and items and reports. Don, do you have anything? I do not. How about you, John? No, I'm good. Jim, I'm fine. Thanks, Doug. Nothing, ma'am. Jim, nothing. Okay. Um, LPA items, I mean attorney items,
no items. Um, community development items. Judith? None. Judith, any any great updates to share with us on 71s or anything?
uh preview of what's to come next month. Next meeting. Next meeting is also going to be a long we have a number of of items that we're not ready. Um this month well in terms of number of applications there's going to be and some of them um next month they're going
to be more lengthy in presentation. And will we be in the town hall next month? Amy clerk possibly but probably not. possibly, but probably not. We're shooting for the first meeting to be held there on September 11th, and
yours is just prior a couple days prior to that. So, what's that exact date? Um, September 9th, I believe. Nth. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. We'll let you know. All right. Thank you very much. Um,
anybody have anything for next month's agenda that they'd like to put in agenda management? I I Judith I think we heard today several times the seaw wall versus retaining wall discussion I think should be had in some form. Um I'm so just give
that some thought and um you know we also brought up before our break we brought up the whole development agreement uh conversation. I don't know when we can have a discussion on that um but that would be helpful. So maybe there's a a work session somewhere in
our uh in our future with these cleanup uh discussions. So um Jason Green with is working on the um update rewrite of the land development code. Great.
Um and they have done um some outreach listening sessions. if you would like to schedule him or his staff to come and do a a session just with you all, I think that that would be appropriate. I I would with anybody else. Oh, I think it would be bene.
Yes, it would be very beneficial. And if you had like because I can collect some of these, but if there are other specific items that you you know you have in your mind that you want to add so we can put those on the agenda so they can be prepared to specifically talk about seaw wall versus retaining wall can be one of them. How would it be
best to get you that for us to individually email you or if that's okay with Amy or you want to email Amy or Amy? Either way. Public record. Either way. Okay. Yeah. And I I'll work with them and try to se September is going to be a longer meeting. I don't know whether we want it
to be a separate meeting or to be able to tackle. I think it should be a separate meeting. Okay. Yes. Um and along those lines, Madam Chair, um it's maybe in 15 ways illegal or or unacceptable, but I think about staff's
administrative um capabilities and where their criteria for taking that action ends and then it goes to us. So, in many elected bodies, as you know, um there's a category for consent agenda where the debate is not the u the the joy in it,
if you will. It's getting it on the official docket and getting approved. So, I'm wondering if some similar category for the LPA can be created during our work session conversation where we have a category we can put these kind of items in without all the um energy, effort, time, money, etc. You
know what I'm getting at? We could deal with those in quick dispatch up front unless there's objections the same criteria we use for approving unanimous and other things. So we can ask the attorney maybe to brief us on our capabilities adding some more streamlined within our context of meeting the streamline approval process
without the full presentations. Maybe that's something we can look at. Okay. So Nancy think on that one? Um I will. Okay. Can I can I add one more thing just based on Yes, please. the the first item we had
this morning with the RPD. Um uh the applicant was a little bit they were frustrated, right? Because they had they had a duplex before. They could prove they had a duplex before. Um staff agreed it makes sense. They're they're
rebuilding from from scratch. They want a more sizable home. We we don't have the ability to approve that. Um, and the buildback policy specifically says you get the exact number of square feet you
had before and the exact number of bedrooms and there's very little if any wiggle hallways or bathrooms and right so um among staff we were discussing the possibility of doing what they're
requesting where it's less than say less than five units because a lot of these um properties were two three or four units. Um allowing them maybe special exception is the right way to go so you just have LPA and one town council instead of having to do a full ordinance
and go to two town councils. Um but something along those lines. So I would suggest adding that as a as a discussion. That's and so the buildback policy in general or just specifically to that type of a case. Well, maybe both, but this conversation
we had with those folks we've had with other people. So I just wanted to let you Great idea because I don't know if you remember 1013rd Street that was a similar situation and to make them because an RPD is a resoning a resoning for just one small lot. It's cumbersome. Yeah,
John could testify on this. Great elegance. I would add setbacks into that as something to talk about. I think uh one of the things we talked about were the inclusion maybe of in the pvious imperous calculations the
ability to include full lot for things that are on beachfront for example. I mean some of these things just don't seem to make sense to me you know. Well they especially don't make sense from 1995 to 2025 after a uh after a
catastroph. Yeah. No there's no plane being thrown here. I'm just saying we I know we are we have an effort to clean these things up and I think these are some of the things we need to fix. Okay. So add that to the list. Judith Jason, anything you want to add?
Okay. Um All right. So it is now 10:43 a.m. Thank you very much. Without objection, we stand adjourned at 10:43 a.m. Wow. You like that?