The meeting commenced with the introduction of variance 25-00008, where the applicants sought to replace their existing home with a larger one on a uniquely shaped parcel of land. The property, which is zoned residential one with rural residential land use, spans 6.74 acres, of which only 1.4 acres are usable. The variance request was primarily driven by the need to accommodate a growing family and the limitations imposed by the property’s peninsula shape. Despite the technical availability of sufficient buildable land, the usable area was constrained, necessitating the variance to maintain the family’s lifestyle.

Central to the discussion was the proposed septic system and its potential impact on neighboring properties, particularly concerning the placement relative to Mr. McKenzie’s well. The board considered a new Advanced Wastewater Treatment System (AWTS) designed to minimize environmental footprint and comply with nutrient removal regulations. However, concerns arose about its proximity to Mr. McKenzie’s well, constructed in 2017, with board members expressing apprehension over the possible infringement on water safety.

The board deliberated over state versus local regulations concerning septic system setbacks, with some members suggesting alignment with the Florida Department of Health’s 75-foot setback requirement rather than the county’s 100-foot standard. The conversation revealed complexities in navigating regulatory requirements and balancing environmental safety with property rights. Board members emphasized the interconnected nature of the aquifer and potential risks posed by inadequate separation distances between septic systems and wells.

Tom Leonard, the property owner, highlighted his long-standing connection to the area and articulated a commitment to using state-of-the-art septic technology. His comments underscored the personal significance of the proposed home expansion and the desire to maintain family gatherings. However, his neighbor, John McKenzie, opposed the proposal, citing property line discrepancies and the potential infringement on his property rights. He argued for a redesign of the house.

The board also addressed concerns about conflicting survey results that complicated property boundary determinations. Discussions touched on the implications of the property being part of a private easement, with considerations for emergency vehicle access and community safety.

Ultimately, the board approved the variance with modified conditions, allowing for a setback of 75 feet or the equivalent as determined by state officials, contingent on compliance with state health and safety regulations. This decision was met with unanimous approval by the board, with an understanding that state oversight would ensure adherence to environmental standards.