--------- Town Finance Committee and our first order of business is to look at the agenda to see if there's any issues to be reordered or added or deleted and having >> want to take attendance.
>> Having none, we go ahead. Well, certainly Janice, you need to take attendance. >> Okay, I'll do roll call. Uh, chairman >> here. >> Member Tedesco >> here. Member Moore. >> Yep. >> Member >> here.
>> The record show everyone is present with the exception of Mr. Anderson. >> Okay. And moving on, we need to approve the minutes from our last meeting, June 5th. Uh may I have a motion to approve? >> So move.
>> Second. Second. Okay. All in favor? I. Moving on. The reason we're here, Ms. Christmas. Thank you. So, you received the copy of the my report that we do every year on the town of Indian
River Shores other postemployment ben benefits. This one is calculated as a September 30th, 2025 or October 1st depending on how you look at it because the October 1st is what we're going to pay for this year if we were to pay or and the
September 30th balance is where we were. So if you can go to the the first slide, the key points of the OPED trust is overfunded. As of September 30th, 2025, the total OPED liability is $1.2 million and the
net position is 2.7. This produces a net asset of $1.4 million, which is up $400,000, which means we are 217% funded. year-over-year. Um, bottom line, trust
assets exceed the total liability by $1.4 million. So, we are in a very healthy position. Next slide. The drivers of the changes were related to four items. We had a retirey buyout from one of our retirees
this year who had a liability closing in aboutund80,000 $200,000. We bought them out for about 65 and so we saved about $125,000 with that buyout. Um investment performance we had a performance of about 9%. We were projecting 6%. So we
earn additional 87,000. We healthcare trends I use a third party resource. I use it from the federal government and they had the cost trending downwards. I have to use third party. I can't try to predict where I use it. And in our demographics, a lot
of our employees are delaying retirement. So we have nine employees that are eligible to retire right now that they could say, "I'm I'm done." And they put it off another year. So that's why our net asset went up. Next slide,
please. What does this mean? Funding policy. Our funding policy is under resolution 20-04 where we add money if we fall below 90%.
Above 110% we don't add any funds. And so since we're 217% funded, we are not going to be adding any money to the the pension trust fund. It'll be 100% paid from by the trust. All buyouts, all
implicit costs, all explicit cost. This past year, we received $170,000 for reimbursing of retiree healthcare, the retiree implicit costs, and the buyout. Um, I actually don't predict us having
to add funds to the pension plan at all, I believe, or the the OPED trust at all in anywhere in the near future. And even in the long term, I believe we are solid unless things change. I don't want to I want to put that caveat. We should be
good if everything stays the same and it stays equal. We are solid. Can you go to the next slide? The assumptions that we use is we use a 6.04 discount rate and investment return rate. Where I get these sources are almost all my assumptions are from
thirdparty resources. So I go out to BlackRock, Vanguard and kind of do an average of what our group um how everything's done and it it averages out to about 6%. Inflation averaged out to about 2.5. Our salary is about 5% based off our
historical and where we forecast we're going to end up. And the healthcare trend comes from the center for Medicare and Medicaid, their office of actuarial reports and they have it at 5.2
going down to about 4.10 in the next 10 years. So that's what we use for the ultimate rate. Um so everything I have is auditable. I had actually if you go to the next slide. Oh
no this is talks about the verification. I almost forgot to talk about this as I mentioned before how I talked about how we were solid for the near future. As you can see I have to do a sensitivity analysis for the Gazsby 74 to Gazby 75
reports. So even if interest rates go down by 1%, we still have a $1.3 million asset. And even if the health care cost went up 1%, we still have a $ 1.3 million asset. So that's
when we look at the sensitivity. So even if I say we're only going to earn 5%, we still have enough. We're solid in our funding. As I mentioned in the previous, if you can go to the next slide, we verify all these thirdparty sources. I do it. I
prepare the report. I pull it from all those sources and give all the backup data. And then I have another employee go behind me and doublech checkck everything. So, she's checking all the ages, checking all the membership, all
the selections for what they do, and double-checking my formulas, and making sure that we are everything's flowing correctly. This year, Darlene retired, so normally I would have had my assistant. Yeah, Darlene did retire. Um, I had Lucy because she's very
meticulous. She dug through everything. She dug through everything and I thank her for that because I would not have been able to do this report without her. Um, and that is about it. If you can go to the last slide. In conclusion, we are
overfunded but we are solid. All the retirey benefits are secured for our future and but we will continue to monitor the assumptions and demographics and performances of the plan just to make sure. I don't foresee
anything, but I do want to report on it. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer any. >> Could you review, Heather, how the in uh assets are invested? >> The assets are invested with the Florida League of Cities, the Florida Municipal
Investment Trust. It is a 7030 7030 um funding. So, we put 70% into equity and 30% into fixed income. And they're I actually don't do the the driven. We just pick what kind of style 7030 and Florida League of Cities does all the
investments. >> Who monitors them to see how they're doing? >> They have a third party monitor and sorry I can get to that information. I don't want to I can't recall the name off top but they are it's similar to how
our public safety pension plan there there's an you have the managers and then you have someone like an adviser they have an investment board that looks at all that >> okay there is somebody that over >> there is someone who over there is a board that oversees this and >> we get a report then
>> we get a we get a quarterly report for where the investments are going Okay. >> Anybody else? >> Do you set the allocation, Heather? >> The town um the town council sets the allocation. So, if they decide to go to
a 60/40, they could or they can. So, that that is the town council's decision. If you want to make recommend recommendations to them, you may. >> Peter, anything? >> No, I'm very comfortable. I give you some money to invest.
>> I wish I could. I don't have very much, but >> I'm sure the employees are thankful to Mr. Havland for pushing to put this in place, although sitting on a a million4
and I'll say excess is a nice luxury. >> It's a it's it's a luxury. Yes, >> indeed. So, uh, I don't know that I have any questions or comments other than the
>> I guess Go ahead, Peter. >> When I brag to people about the situation we're in, some come back and say, "Well, isn't there anything else you could do with that?" >> These funds, >> I just I guess I don't know what the alternatives could be.
These funds are in a trust, so they can only use for postemployment benefits, not for pension. These are for post-employment benefits only. >> That was one of my objections to setting it up in the first place because we had plenty of money, but that's another
issue. But all right. Well, if uh there is no other comment, then I would entertain a motion to approve accept the report. So, >> okay. Second. >> Yes.
>> All right. All in favor? I I >> All right. Well, >> thank you. >> I think uh >> thank you, Heather, for your continual. >> Yeah, great job both of you guys. Appreciate it. And uh yeah, >> thank you. And you save us saved a ton a
lot of money by doing this. >> This is about eight. I know we pay for our defined benefit plan for the general employee which only has one employee in it. We pay $6,000 a year. So, and I know this we were paying $6,000
a year back in 2020 2012 when I started. So, it's probably closer to eight or $9,000 a year now. >> Yeah. >> So, >> so thank you for that as well. >> You're welcome. >> Yes. From a competitive standpoint, >> our employees if they were to go
elsewhere, is this better than equal to or not as good as >> a lot of >> other people are offering? >> FRS does a subsidy. So, I don't I don't want to speak too much because I'm not part of the FRS, but if you if you're with a county, the FRS does offer a
health um subsidy to their retirees. I don't I think it might be$1 to2 dollars per month per year of service, but I'm not 100% sure on it. I'd have to pull that data. Other cities well funding status there's no one that could beat us. >> Yeah.
>> But um from a explicit a lot of cities and other municipalities are moving away from doing the explicit. So we had an explicit subsidy up until about 2014 when we moved away from it. So but
overall we are equal with other cities I believe. I could be wrong but >> but competitive >> we're competitive with the county. They do offer a lot more because of the subsidies on there. So >> we're not in danger of losing anybody.
>> Not on this I don't believe but I I'm not reading that. Do you have you heard anything >> the opposite you don't have you don't attract >> h >> you might not attract because people haven't been with that for us. So yeah you're not losing people. >> We're not losing people if they're here that we're not going to lose if we're
here. They're not they're not leaving us for the health care subsidy to go to the county. If they're going to leave us they're leaving us for the pension plan to go to the county. Not the not the healthcare side of it. >> Thank you. >> Of course.
Any other questions? >> Oh, good. So, do we have uh do we have to schedule another meeting? >> Yeah. Um if you don't for the general updates, I have gotten all the paperwork
in order to do the financial statements. So, I'm going to ask if you could please send all your dates for availability at the end of February and early March so that we can I can work with Christine's schedule to present the financial statements to you.
>> Okay. So, sometime in March. >> Sometime either at the beginning of March or the end of February. >> Okay. Wow. >> So, if you could send them to Janice so that she can we can try to arrange to get a meeting for the audit presentation.
And just one other tidbit, we do have to go out for audit committee selection. This we do have to create an audit committee. >> It will be run by a council member. So a council member will sit on it and it typically takes place in May and June. We usually have in the past we've had
two finance committee members sit on it because you are also part of the audit com audit committee. So if you want to think about what your schedule like is in May and June, we will go in March or April and ask the council to ratify
that. So at the next meeting, we'll try to get the selection and we'll have the council ratify it at their April meeting and then we'll have the proposals and everything. >> We'll put that on the agenda for the March, February. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> That's about it. And then we'll have the budget in May, >> late May, of course. >> Great. >> Okay, then. Is everybody here in late May?
>> Uh, I am. I think Peter is. Oh, but you >> I think may or may not be on the committee, >> right? >> I'd be available for it. >> Yeah, I think I am. Yeah, I think I think we we we moved it
up into late May just to accommodate. Wasn't it in June this past year? >> It ended up in May. It was like the last week of May. Early I don't remember the exact date. Was it the last week of May or was it the first week in June? >> It was last week of May. >> Yeah, because I I ended up going to a cruise or something.
>> Yeah, June 14 June 14th. I ran out of here. So, it was in the last week of May. I'm >> pretty sure. Yeah. >> Yeah. Historically, it's been in June and we were trying to accommodate the finance committee. I can't commit to anything before the the last couple
weeks of May are about the earliest I can pull a budget together. >> All right. So, I guess the first order is to make sure that we get dates of our availability to Janice for the the uh
financial statement review. And uh with that I'll call to the audience. And there's nothing nothing cooking here. So I'm going to adjourn adjourn the meeting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Committee. Part: 2
Good morning. The January 2026 meeting of the planning, zoning, and variance board is called to order. Um, initially, let me wish everybody happy new year. And please turn off any phones or electric items that you may have. Uh, would you join me in the pledge of
allegiance? I pledge allegiance 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. >> Liz, you're going to take a role.
>> Jim, >> present. Terry Bman President Mutmaker here. >> We have a quorum. Again, good morning everyone. We have two items on the agenda today. Both their applications from John's Island Golf Club Golf Club uh with respect to
the construction of a new threestory parking lot. Um the process for today will be to consider both applications. Uh we will hear from the applicant. Uh we will then hear from any interested parties although I don't see any present. Uh
there will be questions from the board with respect to each application and then following this the board will make a ruling u a vote and based upon that vote uh we will make a recommendation to the town council and you should know that the town council has the final
authority as to whether to grant or deny any application for variance. Um for the record we'll note that we received the application two applications one with respect to a setback variance
the other with respect to a height variance as well as a memorandum from staff about the applications. Uh Mr. Hampring I think you had a comment to make with respect to the uh staff memo. Uh yes. Uh just for clarification um and uh historically and and here and of
course moving forward staff itself does not recommend make a recommendation as to um to PCV as to their recommendation relative to approval or disapproval. Nor do we do so to the town council. uh the indications in the staff memo relative
to um satisfactory compliance have to do with the procedural requirements. What staff uh does in the evaluation of PCB applications is to ensure that the application itself has addressed all of the criteria prior to it being placed on the agenda. In other words, and not to
minimize it, has the applicant uh procedurally checked all the boxes for the application? because we wouldn't want to just simply provide it to PZV and then have the procedural issues come up and then have that delay the actual addressing of the substantive issues. So
I just wanted to clarify that uh for the board that uh whatever the criteria happen to be those boxes have been checked. The weight or the substance that you give to those responses is up to the board and to the town council not to the staff. We just indicate that if
there are six things that they have to address, they didn't leave a line blank or a box unchecked, so to speak. >> Thank you. And to be certain, the determination of whether the criteria for variance has been met is within the province of this board. Correct.
>> Yes. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. If I can just follow up. This is very similar and I couldn't share with the rest of the board, but uh member Bowman had a question. Terry had a question and I would analogize it to a court case being filed. When you give it
to the clerk, the clerk checks to see is it signed? Is it the fee is paid? It's the procedure checklist. Ultimately, the judge or the jury makes a determination on whether the case is won or lost. So, um hopefully that helps give clarification on that.
>> Mr. Mr. Chair, I'm ready to give a little more background on our procedure, but I you tell me when's appropriate. >> Uh the one other thing I wanted to note that we received for the record is an email dated January 12 with some additional information and plans uh of the structure that is proposed and we'll
be talking about those. But uh council, now would be a good time for your comments. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Um a couple things. So again, we're going to be having two different hearings, so we will treat them separately. We'll keep that in mind. That's the first thing. The second thing is this is quasi judicial. So,
we're going to have our clerk uh Liz swear in anybody very quickly that could potentially provide testimony including staff. Um we'll do that in a minute. The third thing is and Mr. Chair, you just mentioned about receiving things. If there's any exparte communication, I
would just recommend that we go through each of you and you indicate whether you've had any or not. It just makes the record clear. If you have, you simply need to disclose generally what it was, who it was with, and when it was. Okay. The last is the procedure. Mr. Chair has
it exactly right. We'll have those presentations. And at the end, um, when you get into your deliberations, I do want to mention one other thing uh, as far as findings, but at this point in time, it's probably appropriate to have our clerk swear in and also do a quick
poll of any exparte communication. Well, before we do that, I'll mention the expertise right now. I I did have a meeting with Mr. Wilson at the site and we had a discussion about the application briefly. >> Yes. Well, it would be any member of this board if you had any exparte
communication with any member of the citizenry, residents, applicants, anybody that's come up to you and said, "I heard about this. You're going to have it in front of you as PZV members. I think you should do X, Y, or Z." So, that's the type of excommunic you exart communication. >> Okay. And you just disclosed it, Mr.
Chair. >> Well, while we're at it, then did any other board member take up the opportunity to visit the site or speak with the applicant >> and go ahead and explain it just very briefly? >> Yes. I had um an invitation to go to the
site visit and I um met with Mr. Wilson as well. >> Thank you, Matt. >> No, I haven't had any discussions with anybody. >> Thank you. Um, so that takes care of exparte and then ready to swear in uh anybody that could provide testimony including staff. So
>> would you like to scam? >> No, they can't. They can. Yeah, it's probably better for the record have it. Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. Just in case, right? Now you >> to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you guys. >> I do. I'll do it. >> All right. So, Mr. Chair, we have
everybody sworn in. If anybody should come in late, of course, we would swear them in. But, uh, other than that, um, Mr. chair, the floor is yours and I'm happy to answer any questions during this procedure. >> Well, I think we'll hear from the applicant um who's here to speak on
behalf of John Jan. >> Good morning. Uh my name is Blaine Burkstresser with KMA Engineering and Surveying. I'm the engineer of record for the project. And and just a quick question, you said we're going to do them separately. Which one are we starting with? >> Uh good question. Um, let's start with
the setback application. >> I don't just because the agenda is set this way, we should just follow the agenda. The first one listed on the agenda is the threetory and 40 height >> reflex. >> That that's fine. >> Okay, perfect. We'll start with the
height. So, as we stated in our application, um, over the years as we submitted different site plans for John's Island, our goal has always been to increase the parking that is on the property. One reason being for the
employees, but also being for the residents. So with the parking garage that we've submitted, our goal is to utilize the existing parking spa parking lot that is closest to the clubhouse, but also is closest to the facilities where a lot of the employees will be
working and supplement it with a parking garage. So the goal of the parking garage in an existing footprint is that we'll gain an additional 160 parking spaces um that can be utilized for employees as well as for the residents.
Um the first variance that we're asking in order to accomplish this is for the building heights. So based off the current zoning, so it's an OSC1A zoning, um you are allowed two stories that are
20 ft. Typically, this zoning is more for a residential component. Um even though in this exact parcel, we have a lot we do not have any residential. We have the commercial clubhouse as well as the facilities which are considered more
uh a commercial or recreation um application. Um with the parking garage we are asking for three stories and when we do that and say the height of being 40 ft that is the tallest portion of the parking garage. So with it being three
stories and you see a parking garage you park on the very top floor and you'll have like a parapit wall for shielding of the cars. That actual height will be at around 30 feet from the existing ground. The 40 feet is actually for if you look on the drawings we submitted
there's some call it like a roof gable. It's an architectural feature and that's utilized because there will be an elevator excuse me two elevators on this parking garage and whenever you have an elevator there's an elevator room that's
on the very top. So this is an architectural feature that is utilized to shield and give a better aesthetics of what would be typically a mechanical room. So the variance we are asking for
is from the 20 ft for a I'll say an average of 30 feet for the parking garage but a little less than 44 where those elevator rooms will be. >> Did Did you say 44? No, it's a little less than 40 from existing ground. And
>> could I ask a question? Um, so the drawings that we received, um, has a height measurement of 47.83 at the roof. >> Correct. Yes. So, if you look down at the very bottom where it says level one, >> and to be certain, we're looking at the
drawings with the elevation. >> That's the correct drawing. Yes. So, that's actually um above sea level. So, if you look down at the bottom, it says level one. It says 8.33. That's exist. >> I I can't make it out on the copy we have.
>> I had to blow it up on the computer. >> I apologize. I can share this with you guys. It's It's much easier to read. >> And Mr. Chair, members of the board, I think a clarification is very important right now on what the height is in this.
Um, and perhaps Mr. Held can correct me, but I believe in the C1A commercial, the maximum height and the maximum stories is two stories and 30 feet. So I just don't want there to be any confusion about what exactly the ask is. So that's
what's allowed by right and but I would ask Mr. Hell to confirm that. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you for that clarification as I misspoke. So yeah, we are three stories, but if you think about it, the third story is technically a roof because
we're technically parking on the roof of the structure. So as I was stating, if you look on that drawing I just shared, 8.33 is the existing ground elevation and then the very top of the roof over
the elevator equipment room is at apologize 44 I think on that Yeah. So, you have to subtract the 8.3 from that to get the actual height of the of the parking garage. >> The of the actual parking garage. It It
should be as stated in there. I brought one copy, but You're talking about the flood elevation. >> And what what is the height of the gable? >> That gable's on that first sheet. And I
believe that's the the 40. The drawing shows basically the top of the parapit at 47.83, >> not the top of the gate. >> Correct. There's a truss on top of that. So that's >> Yes.
So, so what I highlighted on the top there's that 38.3 that's the top of the parapit wall and then on the other one is how I highlighted is the top of the architectural feature. So when you actually look at heights on pitched
roofs, you don't go to the very top. You go to there's a mean level that we actually measure from. So that's what we have highlighted there. >> And and there would be an additional elevation uh represented by the truss. Correct.
>> On the gable. Correct. Yes. >> And what is that? What is the top of that elevation? >> It's probably another three or four feet. But like I like I stated, usually when you measure roof height, you come across a mean level. You don't do it at the very top of the
peak. >> Okay. But what is let's start with the actual height of the building just so that we're I understand that in in building department code there may be um different ways to measure the height for
code purposes but we are now asking for you you're asking for a variance and what we're trying to understand is um let's go with actual height of the building from I guess current ground level which you're saying
um because this this drawing right here shows 80 or shows 47.83 feet to basically the top of the elevator shaft
not counting the roof gable. >> Is that correct? >> That is correct. Yes. >> So is it about 10 feet to the top of the roof gable? >> Like I was saying the roof gable would probably be another four feet. >> Mr. chair and and board. I think it's really important because we're talking about about five or six or seven
different measurements here. And the reason and I think Mr. Held needs to give us because the reason why is the applicant's asking for a variance from the technical allowance. >> Understood. But one of the things I'm
concerned about uh which may not be uh limited by the technical allowance is the observability of this particularly from A1A. >> I That's right. What we're learning is that the top of the truss from uh is
going to be in excess of 50 ft >> when you add that additional 4T on top of the 47 47 ft um for the parap >> it would be less than that because of the existing ground level.
>> Okay. How much was >> it would it would probably be right around like I said I apologize I don't have a the very tippy top I don't have that exact measurement what it is but it would be around 43 44T
>> if the parapet is 47t >> right but what I'm saying is you got to subtract the 8.33 is what the existing ground elevation is >> understand what is the pitch of the of the of the roof because then you would
you can tell from that is it 10 you know 122 you would know you have to know the height of the roof from the top of >> I don't have I apologize I don't have the exact height of the very top like I said we don't typically measure from the
very top of the pitch so I apologize for that >> has any determination made or any study made of the visibility of the top of this parking lot from A1A. >> Um, not from A1A. No,
>> just looking at the trees there, they don't come anywhere near 40 or even 30 feet. So, you're going to have a view from A1A at the top of the parking lot. Correct. Well, I would say this. They're not going to be as obviously 40 feet tall, but as you're sitting in a car and
you're angled about where you're looking from sitting in a car and how close you are to the trees, I don't think it would be very difficult to see the very top of >> you haven't looked into that, have you? >> We haven't done the visibility study from A1. Now,
>> um the club considering any alternatives to this structure >> as opposed to a parking garage in general. >> So, what we've been like I stated, we were here probably last year for remote parking lots that they have developed
for the staff. There's one on Clarkson um Lane and there's one more um on Chapen that we have turned into parking for employees within the last year. >> What about alternatives to this
structure? >> Um we have looked at solely a parking garage in this exact location. Um, we've done different iterations when it's come to like architectural styles. So, for instance, we're talking about the
pitched roof. That was something that was added on for aesthetics. Um, as opposed to just having a flat stucco band roof everywhere, this was kind of added on for an aesthetically appealing kind of view.
>> What has changed that requires this parking garage? Well, I think there's always been an issue and Rex might be able to weigh in more than I am. There's always been an issue with parking at the club, whether it's in finding spots for employees or
residents since the club has probably been, you know, established and this parking lot was built. The number of employees has grown quite a bit. As you can imagine, there's just more services offered at the club. But also, you're probably seeing more residents
um that might have multi- cars in their driveways as well as visitors when it comes to you're seeing I think you're seeing a younger generation of kids and grandkids that are coming to utilize the club. So, this is trying to fix an existing issue, but also we we think
that there's going to be more of a parking demand in the club as >> you mentioned that this garage would have 16 parking spots. How is that number determined to shade? How is it determined to an additional.
>> So, actually we're going to have in that parking garage, we're going to have 218, but we're losing existing parking, so it's a net gain of 160. >> And why 218? Why an additional 160? >> Realize we have another project that
we're working on right now, which is the expansion of our tennis facilities. So there's 74 temporary parking spots on the north end of our tennis facility that are for employees that are going to be lost. So that's 74 spaces also we are going to
lose for staff. Our staff when I came there in 1993 was 250 employees. We now have over 650 employees. >> Right. I I appreciate that and that you
know that these are um changes that the club would like to make to um improve the club for the members. But what I'm struggling with is the criteria
for a variance um includes that the request or the the per the the basis for the request cannot be self-created and um that Mr. Wilson, what you just
described was is directly a self-created issue and also the criteria something just because there's a need doesn't you know
mean it's not self-created it it is this is squarely within the definition of self-created so I I particularly with the height require um variance I'm struggling with um
whether the request meets the criteria because there are other criteria I could go through as well. But the need for parking um is not a hardship that in my view satisfies the criteria.
You know, if anyone could come in and say I need I you know I just had triplets. I need four extra bedrooms in my house. Um that's not, you know, a um basis for a variance of the ordinances.
Um so, and so that's what I'm struggling with a little bit. Um, and so I I had if we can go if we can go back to to the questions on this um
on on this drawing, could you just mark on here where the um where the uh elevator shafts are going to be? >> Can I jump in real quick regarding the height requirement on the building here? Maybe I can help clear up some issues
here. Um, and Blaine, if you could, can you step up to the po up here real quick and and help us out? Um, I I just need you to point out some stuff for us here. Uh, let's clear this up real quick for
everyone. Um, the first thing we need to do is we need to establish obviously the average natural uh grade of the site here. So, let's establish that first here. What what is the average natural grade?
>> 8.3. >> Okay. So, let's let's establish 8.3 on the on the drawing there. >> And Mr. Held, uh just for the purpose of this record, this would universally apply to any application for a building permit to your office.
>> That's correct. I'm I'm following section 164 of the uh town of Indian River Shores land development code and this is how I come up with measuring building height. >> So the first thing we need to do is we need to establish the average natural
grade of the site. Okay. Once we establish the average natural grade, then what we want to do is measure vertically up to the uh inside finish face, okay, of the highest
interior ceiling to the exterior wall. So that's going to be a point where they meet. So, you're going to have the interior ceiling, the highest interior ceiling to where it
meets up with the exterior wall face. Okay. So, you'll take that measurement. >> Well, what is that measurement? >> That's going to be the height. >> No. >> Yes. So, let let's find that. >> So, look for look for the underside of
the third floor ceiling. The underside of the third 783 that we've been speaking about. >> Okay. So, the underside of the third floor ceiling, that's going to be your your measurement is. So, what's that measurement from the
finished the average natural grade up to the underside of the third floor ceiling? >> 47.83. >> So, when you account existing grade you did 39.5 >> 39.5 okay
so that is the height of the building everything above that in this instance does not count because it's a parking garage okay we have above that what do we have on there
let's look at the >> he doesn't the drawing doesn't say but it's at least 10 ft to the peak. >> We do not we do not look at >> the other let's let's look at let's look at it together. I don't have a copy of of it
in front of me. So everything else above there we have we have the stairs. Correct. And we have the peaked roof over the stairs. What are the stairs used for? That's egress. That's not considered part of the building
envelope. Correct. That's egress. Everything else is considered egress. So it would not fall under that building envelope. So it would not be counted as the height of the building. >> All right. >> So you're saying that would only count
the parapit wall. >> The parapit wall above the the third story ceiling would not count either. Okay. It's only everything that's inside the building envelope that would count for the building height itself.
Everything else above that does not count for the building height in this in a parking garage. Okay. This the uh the parapit wall would not count above that. The the roof the pitch roof would not
count. That's an egress point. If that was an elevator in there, it would not count. Now, if it was a little office above there. Let's say it was an occupied space, something of that nature, then it would count. Then we
would have to use that as a as a height requirement. But it doesn't. It's not part of the whole building envelope that's included. So that would not count as as part of the height requirement. Okay. So that figure you gave us for the
height from the average natural grade up to the bottom of the ceiling of the third floor is your building height. So you would need a variance that would cover
you for anything above that 30 foot up to the figure that you gave us. >> Well, Mr. H, let me ask you this question. Yeah. Is there any limitation on the height of the access ways that
that can go uh as high as three. >> It would be it would be in a residential situation for a house, it would be 10 ft. >> So, anything above the >> above that ceiling, >> right? >> Anything that would be above that
ceiling, you would have a limitation of 10 ft. >> And what about with respect to a structure of this type? >> If you have any type of egress point, there would not be any type of restriction on an egress point. No at all. >> No, not for a parking garage egress
post. I could go to launch. >> Well, it's it would be part it's considered part of the architectural design. >> All right. >> In that case, so but you're not going in other words, if you went another 50 ft high, obviously that's not part of an
architectural design. It would have to meet wind load requirements as well. So, it would all have to be part of the the structural and architectural design. would have to meet certain wind load requirements that would have to fall within the Florida building code.
>> I I mean I I understand that's very helpful. Thank you. >> Again, this is my technical I'm just giving you my technical opinion. I'm giving you what's based on our ordinance as well as what's based on the Florida building codes when it comes to egress and when it comes to parking garages.
Again, I'm not casting a vote or anything like that. I'm just giving you my technical on the subject. >> So I I understand. So in the event that the parking structure that they proposed
um was 30 ft above the average natural grade um we wouldn't be here today. Correct. >> Um because you could approve it regardless of the um of how high the egress point goes.
>> Correct. >> Right. But we are here today because they're seeking a variance above the 30 foot height requirement. And because of that, in my view, it is a reasonable um
inquiry as to how high the actual entire building is going to be because one of our factors is impact to um the you know the community. So I understand there's a difference between the technical
um definition of the height of the building. I had asked earlier what the actual height of the building um at that point was going to be. It seems to me it's roughly assuming the peak is 10 feet. is above
the grade is 39.5 plus 10 ft which so the tip top of that assuming that the peak is 10 feet I'm just assuming could be 12 but it's 49.5 to the top of the
roof of the elevator shaft >> that's that's a >> okay um so that's we understand the the the various um differences. So it sounds
like from the technical perspective the the variance request is a 10 foot difference between what's allowed roughly nine and a half foot difference between what's allowed
and what you're requesting. Madam, yes, I think that's accurate. Correct. The technical request for the variance is whatever is above 30 feet. And the math that Mr. Held and Mr. Burstresser just did indicates it's
approximately 9.5. >> Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. And that's excellent to establish what you're evaluating. That is exactly right. Thank >> your next question. Yes. Right. Exactly.
>> And there's only one elevator. >> And if I may, A1A would be at the bottom of the shot. >> Yeah. So, this is When I was saying, if you're sitting in a car, your horizontal distance from this
what you're pointing to the elevator shaft is on the north westerly portion of the building and is I don't know what is the the approximate square feet of or the dimensions of the
shaft >> is most probably the shaft I would 25. >> Okay. >> And that's the only area where there the peak roof is going to be over. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And on this drawing that you
provided, there's um there's dotted lines at the bottom. I was wondering what is the the very the dotted line at the very bottom. Is this the >> island which also line
>> right? Okay. So from do you know the dimen the the distance from the right of way line of A1A to the corner of the the closest corner of the parking structure?
Not off the top of my head, but by scaling it, this is believe moss is 80 foot right away. >> 60 foot right away. Then your
closest point probably >> and that would be >> from the closest corner >> that >> Mr. structure the the structure itself I'm have it's tiny but it appears to be 128
and a half ft see it listed on that south 6.5 >> sorry thank you >> so that let's say where that roof would be for the elevator. >> What bushes?
>> Okay, thank you. >> I'm looking at the elevation diagram. You've got two That was my confusion as well. It certainly looks like there's two Is it um is it possible for me to pull
anything up on the TV with a flash drive? The reason I'm saying is I have architectural elevations. That should clear up what what it look like. >> Well, are there one or two paragraphs? >> I'm sorry. >> Are there one or two paragraphs? I >> I'm going to verify on that. I did not
believe there was one over the stairwell on the other um on the north uh excuse me, the south. Just pull the north picture first.
>> Just for the record, Mr. Will you supply that so we can have that? >> Of course, I'll I'll submit as public record. >> Thank you. >> So, this is looking at from the northeast. So, As you can see, the pitched roof is on the elevator shaft on the northwest. And
then there's the entrance that's occurring right there on the northeast. And then can you go to the next one? So just for clarification for everybody, Mr. Besser the um Heather if you would move to what would be the long face of
that of that building there. Uh that just the cursor. >> Okay. Yeah. Right there. So that is the that is the west facing front. That's that's what we're looking at right here is the west facing front. Is that >> that is that is correct. That's you
looking from the golf course to the west. >> Okay. And if I see this correctly, there are two. >> There are two. I apologize. There's one that the architect put on the stairwell. So, this would be on the >> This would be on the southwest portion.
>> And and Mr. Held, if I may, board, Mr. held based on your prior testimony where we see a a the first level of openings of faux windows. Do you see that? Based on your testimony, if you were
standing on that level inside that structure and you looked up, the ceiling that you would see would be your building height based on what you said earlier. Is that accurate? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. >> But there are >> I I I don't disagree. I just want to be
clear for the record. Right. >> But there's also a limit of two stories in this. So it's not just the height. >> Correct. >> And and the code ordinances with respect to height calculations have to be assessed in the context of
also being two stories. So those the two have to be read together, not just, you know, sort of separated out. So when when we're um you know I understand the technical aspects of the height
calculations but um typically this would be we'd be talking about a two-story building not a three-story building. So the um the egress
height would be limited and because it starts with a two-story building and it couldn't just go forever because that wouldn't be a reasonable use of you know there's just architecturally etc. So we are I mean it's a three-story building
and then we're calculating it from there. So we really I think I think it is important to consider the actual height of the building once we go from twotory to three story. Um, and
it's it's a of course um not surprisingly a a very nice looking um parking garage. Um that's you know um but it is tall
and I think I know we're We're addressing both of these separately, but this is we are not only considering today the height requirement or request, but we're considering the height request
also in the context of effectively eliminating all of the setbacks for this building. Um, so you're so the request is to to take
to construct a parking garage that um covers from property line to property line and goes up an extra story um beyond and plus beyond the height
requirements. Um now so those two things I think we can't just we have to consider them both in my view at the same time because you're you know sort of basically maximizing the you know
you know the possible use of the the property. Um I did have a question that really wasn't addressed. It's the the the blue line um on the drawing appears to be like the property line that this parking garage sits in. Is that correct?
Like the the parcel. >> That is correct. The blue line is the property line. >> Okay. And so have since I've been on this board, we've um had two other requests from John's Island, I think
relating to this parking garage. Is that correct? Do are you aware of that? >> No, those are different. Those are different. Yes, those are different properties. >> So that that clears that question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> The the zoning requests here are for setbacks and for height. It
>> correct. Is it the case that all of the other requirements um are would still be satisfied in that for example um maximum building lot coverage and the maximum density
requirements those um given the parcel would still be satisfied. You don't need a variance for those items. >> No, we don't need a variance for those items. every other criteria for code is met except this height and setback
and then if you like I mean I know it's the next hearing but if you want to touch on the setback we can >> briefly >> could you could you address to um
I guess I I have a question so the the the one of the criteria is that your um the variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible a reasonable use of the property. Um
could you address that criteria and and in in terms of um our consideration of your request? >> Of course. So, as we currently stated about the parking, there's no room on this parcel
to add additional parking and still meet the code requirements. So, going off of this, the only way to increase the parking is to go vertical. So, what we're requesting is the minimum height
that we feel comfortable that we can meet in order to get the parking as well as the setbacks. So looking at different areas, this was determined to be the best location for a parking garage structure that was not in view of residents was not right when you come in
and in view of the clubhouse. So in this, as you can see with the blue lines, the shape of the lot is also pinched. Um, so this location was the the best spot in order to best utilize
the existing land, >> right? But you can still put a parking garage on the lot without this variance and and without the height variance, um, you can still, you know, add
parking. >> So I think you're referring to could we add a story parking garage, >> right? Um I mean the the the amount of parking that you're requesting seems to me a preference. The location is a
preference. It's not it's it's not actually a limit of the property. It's a preference about where to put the parking. Um I'm trying to understand beyond the preference
the basis for the request. So, if you were to do a twostory parking garage and take into account the existing parking you're losing based off that and with the utilities there, you would have no net you would have very little net gain
in parking. That extra story is where we're getting the net gain in parking. So like like there wouldn't be I mean from a feasibility standpoint there wouldn't be an option to do a twotory parking garage.
Well your net gain is 160 parking spots, right? >> Correct. Yes. >> And how was it determined that you need you needed an additional 160 parking spots? Um, like I think as Mr. Wilson stated, the increase in of employees that have
occurred in the club since the original um, construction of John's Island, as well as the, like I was stating earlier, the residents, um, I believe we've switched from a lot of one or two car families.
We're having a lot more people visit and whenever we have like a large event or something occurring at the clubhouse when you have the employees needed for that as well as the residents, we've always been tight on parking. And like previously stated, this parking garage
would allow us to remove remote parking lots that are a distance away from the clubhouse that we now currently have employees parking as well as losing the I believe was it 47 parking spaces near the the tennis court
complex. >> 74 parking spaces. >> Okay. Um well, thank you for all that. Um I I I'll be candid with you. I I have three issues that I see that are an impediment
for me. Uh number one, uh the height clearly and the visibility from A1A. I don't think we satisfactorily addressed whether that uh is or is not going to be a problem. Um I don't think it should be visible from A1A. I think it would be
a blemish um and something to be avoided if at all possible. Uh secondly, and more technically, uh I haven't really heard a hardship except compliance with the code that the club doesn't want to comply with. And in that regard, it also
seems to be a self-inflicted hardship because you're eliminating a number of parking spots in other areas and trying to compensate for that by constructing a three-story parking garage. And the other point uh and it may be in a setback application not so much this one
but it certainly comes into play here is there's a proposal to remove cotton trees and that has to be the subject of a se separate application altogether they're protected species and I don't see that addressed anywhere um overall uh our basic charge is to
maintain the character of the town and I think a three-story parking garage that consumes an entire lot is not something that's going to be uh consistent with what the code envisions. So I I wanted to be upfront about what my concerns are uh in with respect to the application.
Uh I also had another question that I should have asked early candidly and perhaps Mr. Olsson can address this. Uh the applicant is John's John's Island Club Inc. Does John's Island Club Inc. own this property?
They're they're the owner of the lot where the parking lot is proposed. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> And the adjacent lot next to it which we golf course. >> Thank you. Um I don't think we have any other uh attendees that want to make
comments. Uh any other questions or comments from the board? >> No. >> Mr. share. I would just offer the applicant a final closing opportunity and then uh take it under uh discussion. >> Surely. >> Yeah. So, I I appreciate all all the
feedback everyone's given. Like I said, this is the first time that I've been able to present this and get to see what some of the concerns might be. The the only thing I would ask is that if you know you would allow us maybe the possibility, especially if you're, you know, thinking
in the negative direction on this vote to let us pull it from the agenda and provide you some of these visual studies from A1A. That's something I wasn't prepared to to show you. So, if you'd be willing to let us show you some different exhibits as well as show you some different um maybe we could also
take some of this feedback and get back with the architect to look at some of the features we discussed and let us present it back to the the board at a later date. >> Let me be clear on the procedure because I don't want anybody to give up rights they may have. So, uh Mr. Bergstress or Mr. Wilson, the way this will work is
the board will do deliberations here in a minute and you'll hear what they recommend. they make a recommendation to the town council. We'll be meeting next Thursday 22nd. At that time, the council will have the opportunity to make a final decision. Now, ultimately that
decision is binding. And of course, at any time between now and then, you may do what you like. I'm not suggesting you should or shouldn't do anything, but I want to be clear that this is not the final hurdle. Um, but again, it would be inappropriate for you
not to be aware of how procedurally this will work. And that's my understanding from reading the ordinances um is that if the application is denied,
there's a a year wait before they can resubmit. So I I suspect that may be >> that thank you for mentioning that. That is also accurate. If if it is denied, there is a one-year waiting period um if it's substantially the same for a variance.
>> So Mr. Mr. Chair, if I may, I just want to clarify um that's if it's denied by the town council. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Not um relative to any um recommendation here. Um and I'll defer to um uh Mr. Sweeney, but I think procedurally
uh as the applicant based on what you said, if you want to withdraw your application at this time at really at any time, you can sort of tell us that and um we'll adjourn and we can come back and if that's your, you know, preference to try to work with some of this stuff. But I'll defer to that's
accurate. I'll I'll defer to the um to our town attorney as to um uh just at least articulating options as to whether or not it should be formally withdrawn or whether the board should simply um table it and you know uh make sure that
before we leave um any additional questions or additional information that the board wants is known to the applicant and then we can schedule a mutually agree agreeable time to to come back. I'm just trying to make sure that the process isn't um you know ju just is
uh is smooth for for the for the board and for the applicant. >> That's all accurate. There are really three options that could happen right now. Number one, we continue finalize this hearing and you make a recommendation. Number two, the applicant can withdraw today, tomorrow, all the way through next week. Um and
number three, if the board, this board chooses to entertain a motion to table to the next meeting, which would be appropriate, um you can do that. That's majority vote. Um so those are the options. >> Well, I'll turn to the applicant. What
how would you like to know and and I appreciate all that clarification. Um, based off it being a recommendation board, we'd like to leave it open to you guys for a vote and then be able to take any of that feedback and put into our presentation either you table us to come
back or to the town council. >> Is the town council? >> Yes, sir. >> Is the town council able to consider evidence that has not been put before this board in their determination? >> Arguably, yes. There there's not a clarification in the code that it
whether it's denovo or not and so the default provision is we've taken it's been denovo. Yes sir. >> Well it sounds like we're ready for a motion. Do I hear a motion? >> I make a motion to approve the height
variance for the parking lot. >> All in favor there needs to be a second. Sorry. He made the motion. There needs to be a second on the motion. I'm sorry. >> Any second? >> No second. >> The motion dies for lack of a second.
That's correct. >> Any other motion? >> Right. >> You can give up the gavl temporarily to make the motions should you so choose. I will share under the gavl and I move to uh deny the application for the uh
height variance. >> I'll second that. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> nay. >> Um I I I do want to be clear to please articulate under Florida law, you know, you have the different elements here and
if the two of you could just briefly I I heard you Mr. carbon already start, but if you could briefly go through the A through G just very quickly and whether or not uh the applicant met those elements. Um and if they did uh or didn't uh identify why um do you have
those? I can provide those to you if need be. >> I have it's up to me whichever of you wants to go first. It just needs to be clear. >> You starting with the A special conditions, Miss B. >> Yeah, I'm happy to go first. I'm looking
at 16807 2 A2. >> Yes. >> And the criteria setting forth the uh uh considerations for variance. >> Yes sir. >> Consideration A is special condition. Um
I have not heard special conditions relative to this application. U the lot has existed for a period of time has been used as a parking lot and really have not heard anything has altered that use or application. Uh B, is it unique?
I don't see anything that any circumstances that cause a hardship occur to the property. C hardship. I think I've addressed that already. Uh I don't see any particular hardship. I don't see any change. The explanation provided in the application really
doesn't articulate a hardship. Uh D is the hardship self-created and we've heard today. It seems like the elimination of parking spots in other areas is exactly that. Uh
a minimum variance. Uh I have not heard how the 160 additional parking spots was determined except some seat of the pants. It seems like it would be a good idea and therefore we have not heard of a demonstration that this is the minimum
variance required. Uh I believe those are the items. >> Sorry, there are two more adjacent is adjacent properties and G is used. >> Well, that's a good point. Adjacent property. I um I see any application
that there are two properties at least that will be within view of this uh garage you have constructed. But there's no indication that those property owners were contacted or have any input or even put on notice uh of the sharing of this application.
Um as far as immediately adjoining properties, it sounds like that is property of John's Island Club and they obviously don't have any complaint. Uh I don't have the what is the next
criteria? It's use >> the use variance minimum. >> I don't see an issue with the use variance. It's being used as a parking lot as is. >> Right. So from my perspective is fairly similar.
um out of the criteria, you know, special conditions. Um there's nothing inherent to the land that would require a
variance. Um and there the key term of the code is reasonable use. Um there's it's currently being used as a parking structure or a parking lot. A parking structure could be built to
add more um parking. There would be two levels of parking. Um so that one I I don't the f a I don't think has been satisfied. Um
b similar um similar reasoning. Um although I understand the preferences and the desires of the you know to serve the members that's not the type of
justification that supports a variance under um zoning um code. Um, similar with criteria C, the hardship described here is not the type of
hardship that variances are intended to address. Um, the hardships are in my view preferences. Um and there are alternatives that um
would not require a variance um similar on self-created. The justification for this request is in my view squarely within the definition of a self-created harm and that
is that is a difficult one to overcome in my view. Um And while I understand the that this is this parking structure
is within um the the overall properties a property of John's Island Club. Um we have a responsibility to apply these rules equally to all of the applications that
come before this board. And I think it's it poses a very a great difficulty to future applications if we create exceptions
um for certain applicants and not other applicants. And um so despite my empathy and sympathy for the request um I I don't believe it satisfies the criteria of a variance. Um similar to
minimum v category E the minimum variance there's you know you have the applicant has essentially attempted to maximize the variance effectively rather than minimize the variance and so I don't
believe that that um criteria is satisfied um on the height requirement criteria I think we don't have enough information on that criteria. Um I had um that was
one question I had in advance of this meeting what what the view would be from A1A. Um and we don't have that information. So that hasn't been satisfied by the applicant at this hearing. Um and then the the use
variance I think is um not an issue here because it is a parking lot. Um Uh so th those are my reasonings. >> Thank you both. Uh that of course will become part of the minutes and will be forwarded to the town council as part of the recommendation.
>> Thank you. Uh at this time Mr. Chair, I I would assume you want to move into the next variance request of course similar but >> yes uh and that is request for a variance with respect to the setback uh code limitation. Um
so you have the floor. Thank you. So, I'll be brief as we basically touched on everything else on the parking garage. So, with the setback requirement, where we're asking for it is on the east and west side of the
parking garage. Um, as stated, the west of the parking garage is the golf course, which is also owned by John's Island Club. And then to the east of the parking structure is Silver Moss Drive,
which is a private rideway. So that means it's a private road that is owned and maintained um by the club. So basically, we're asking for variance on setbacks
for parcels that are all under the same ownership. So I'm open to any other questions I will say. Oh, and I just want to make one point as as we look at these variances. I just want to note that when you grant a variance that cannot be used
in a future variance request stating that hey you gave these people a variance on this. It's always sight specific. So, the reason I just wanted to state that out there is it doesn't set a precedent for us on any other application that we might make or for another um property owner when they make
an application for variance. >> And Mr. Chair, factually that's accurate. I understand there's a practical aspect of real life, but but legally that is a correct statement. >> Yes. So I just want to say that because like we cannot use that as an excuse for a reasoning I apologize for a variance
anywhere else on the John's Island property. >> But this board has a responsibility to apply the criteria the same I mean to apply the criteria to every application that comes through. So that's my that's
my constraint here is that we are effectively being asked to excuse multiple of the criteria. >> No, I I understand. I I was just pointing that out just we can use that for future variances.
>> So So I'm open to any questions you might have when it pertains just to the setback um variances that we're requesting. And we received some material yesterday uh which included an email from a bird a blame bird stressor
uh to Mr. Wilson dated January 9. And in item three of that email it indicates that there are going to be uh oak trees that will be removed. You're aware that has to be the subject of a separate application. I take it >> correct. Yes, that's a separate
application. >> We don't have the authority. We don't have an application here. So, we don't have the authority to approve uh that plan right now. >> Well, you're not you're not approving the plan. You're not >> we're we're being asked to grant the
variance which includes removal of cotton oak trees. >> No, no, no, no. It's it's only a variance to be able to utilize up to the property line and no longer setbacks. That's all that's so he couldn't go through and pull a permit to do any land
clearing. And I see Mr. H shaking his head. They could not physically do anything >> other than they would be allowed to. Now there's other, you know, electrical, wind load, flood, all of the things that would be natural for Mr. Held's office to be evaluated. >> That's correct.
>> Let me understand that. So if this variance is granted, they would then have to make a SHF application with respect to oak trees and all the other items that they would have to address. Yes sir. That's correct. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you for that question. >> Yes sir. >> Um
is the HOA in favor of this? >> Is the HOA microphone and just explain it's just easier. >> Thank you. Um, I only spoke with the uh general manager down there at JIPA and
they had no objection. >> And just so we're clear on the record, >> John's Island Property Owners Association. >> Thank you, sir. >> Yes. >> So, the the members themselves have been not been notified or um requested
input. Just the manager >> the members are aware. They've been aware since last year for the project. And it's the the property owners that own the land to the south or to the east of um the that road between the proposed
structure and A1A. Is that correct? That's not John's Island Club, Inc. That is a property owners association. >> Part of the property owners association. Correct. Any other questions?
>> I'm not sure I have questions, but I have um uh so ultimately maybe this is a question. If the height variance is denied by the council,
what would the plans be with respect to the structure and the setbacks? Would you go forward with a twotory structure on this expanded footprint? >> I'm not 100% sure at this time because
as as you imagine, this is all determined by the board. So if the height variance is denied, I we'd have to ask with them on if they'd want to move forward with it. >> Anything else? >> Is there a reason why the two
requests weren't in the same application? >> Uh yes. Uh and and and a part of that has to do with when it comes to setbacks, there's certain thresholds. They're evaluated differently from being
submitted to the building department. Setbacks, there's an administrative approval authority by Mr. Held or the chief building official of less than one foot. Three feet this board can approve. Of course, since it's greater than that,
it's, you know, obviously something that needs to go all the way up to town council. And just from a evaluation perspective, it was appropriate to have them be two separate variances. I understand they're almost inextricably intertwined to become very lawyerly here, but that's the reason
why, as I understand it. Mr. Hell can clarify if I'm incorrect procedurally. >> No, that's a procedure. You are correct. Okay. Thank you. Other comments or questions? I don't want to repeat everything that we uh discussed during the first
application. I think uh a good part of it is relevant here. So if there's nothing else, we should uh proceed to a vote before we hear a vote. A motion I'll pass the gav. I'll make a motion to deny the application.
Any second? >> I will second that. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> all opposed. >> No. >> Motion carries. >> And again, without be laboring it and you would be welcome to recite similar
to earlier, but it is important to go through these items. >> I will do. >> Thank you. >> Again, looking at section 168.07. A2 criteria for the grant of a variance application. Uh a special conditions and I'll join
this with B unique situation. I don't see special conditions or anything unique about this particular situation situation as just a few years. I really haven't heard any great change articulated that warrants uh warrants uh
recognizing a special condition or uh a unique situation. >> Mr. Carvin, could you hit your microphone? I'm sorry. I just saw this off. >> I'm sorry. It is off. >> Is that better? >> Yes, Robert. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um C hardship. Um I don't see
the hardship. I don't see it has been demonstrated. The application has been submitted does not articulate a hardship and certainly it does seem to be a self-created situation at best particularly given the elimination of uh a number of parking spots in other
areas. E minimum variance uh we discussed the number of spots that are going to be added uh that has not been clearly articulated in terms of how many additional spots are needed and how that number was arrived at. Aside from some general
sense that more was wanted. Um, adjacent property with respect to F adjacent property owners. While there has been no notice to those individual properties that have been identified as possibly being able
to view within sight of the uh garage. Uh I understand that the HOA is in agreement. So I don't see an issue there. Uh nor do I see an issue with the use since the property has been used as a parking lot for some time. I my view is all with all of the
criteria. Um I agree with my fellow board member. Um and similar to what I described before, the the key criteria for me that I don't think are met are um
uh criteria C um criteria D. Criteria C is hardship. Um, I mean, the the the code itself says it is of no importance whatsoever that the
denial of the variance might deny to the property owner some opportunity to use the property in a more profitable way or to sell at a greater profit. Effectively, similarly, you know, the opportunity to use the
property in a better way or a better preferred way. um I I don't think is the type of hardship that that criteria addresses. Um self-created I I don't see how this gets around um
that criteria. Um it certainly isn't the minimum variance um requested because it's actually the maximum possible variance requested from 25 feet to zero feet. um and it's of
reasonable use of the property and there's still opportunity for reasonable use of the property without um the variance requested. So that's a difficulty for me. Um uh criteria F. I
think this the the setback um request is um you know without the height request um added on to the setback request. The setback request alone is less troubling in terms of adjacent property because
you know one um the only two directly adjacent properties are either the applicant itself or an associated um uh membership group to the club. So I um in
my view category F has been satisfied um and Category G is um it's maintaining the same use as a parking. So that's that's been satisfied. Um but similar to the
other ones, it's it's maximizing the space and in conjunction with the height request, I think they um those are my reasons for um uh
voting no on this variance request. Thank you both. >> Any other business we need to address? >> Thank you so much. >> Uh no, Mr. Chair, I don't believe there is anything else. And um as mentioned, this will be going on the 22nd to the
town council at the next regular town council meeting. Uh which will start at 9:00. >> I'm sorry, at 9:00. Yes, that's correct. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We are concluded.