►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
A
D
E
A
Second,
all
if
they
ever
say
yeah,
all
all
right
so
where
we
are
at
this
point
is
swearing
in
of
witnesses.
What
we
want
to
do
is
swear
and
everybody's,
going
to
speak
for
or
against
make
any
comment
whatsoever
talk
to
us
at
all.
If
you
would
stand
raise
your
right
hand
and
let
our
clerk
here
swear
you
into
it.
A
A
If
another
member
comes
in
as
we
expect
him
to,
then
mr
jones
will
sit
here.
Watch
not
vote,
participate
in
deliberations,
etc,
but
you'll
be
looking
at
the
five
members.
In
fact,
there's
our
fifth
member
right
there
up
to
the
point
of
going
through
these
first
two
items
on
the
agenda,
at
which
time
mr
rowe
is
going
to
step
aside
and
mr
jones
will
be
the
fifth
member.
A
A
G
A
F
F
So
the
landscape
buffer
is
really
what's
keeping
the
building
from
being
right
up
against
the
property
line.
At
this
point,
so
he's
asking
to
have
that
reduced
to
five
feet
and
since
five
feet
isn't
really
going
to
allow
enough
room
for
trees.
He's
asking
that
the
trees
in
that
portion
of
that
buffer
be
eliminated.
F
The
only
area
that
the
perimeter
landscaping
buffer
is
required
for
is
between
the
commercial
property
and
the
residential
property,
which
is
along
that
same
side,
so
he's
just
asking
for
the
reduction
where
the
building
is
going
to
be.
If
I
understand
correctly,
he
is
here
so
he
can
answer
questions
for
you
just
in
case,
but
if
I
understand
correctly,
it's
just
a
reduction
where
the
building
is
going
to
sit,
and
I
do
have
slides
that
I
can
show
you
so
maybe
that
will
help.
F
F
B
F
H
A
B
H
Well,
no,
you
he's
asking
it
was
reduced
back
to
zero
and
so
now
he's
he's
here
because
he
has
to
file
the
variance.
If
he's
going
to,
I
guess,
remove
the
buffer.
Is
that
what
we're.
H
Buffer,
so
you're
you're
going
to
decide
on
the
landscaping
issue
now
when
they
reduced
it
back.
That
was
obviously
a
condition
at
the
time
so
now
he's
asking
to
amend
that
portion
of
the
requirement.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
why
you're
here
you
can't.
I
guess
you
know,
require
the
setback
to
be
moved
up,
because
it's
already
been
reduced
down
to
zero,
but
you
can
still
require
the
buffer
that
he's
requesting
be
removed.
F
A
A
The
plan
new
building,
I'm
looking
for
the
actual
language
of
the
actual
request
and-
and
all
I
see,
is
the
subject
line
here.
E
A
F
A
A
B
B
A
J
Charles
suggerie,
with
benchmark,
I
represent
mr
naeem
akhtar
and
for
his
property,
okay,.
A
J
Well,
the
building
is
designed
for
40
feet
so
when
we
have
a
40
feet
building
and
when
you
design
a
parking
lot
with
a
5
feet,
sidewalk
in
front
of
it,
which
is
required
for
handicap
accessibility,
and
then
you
have
a
18
feet
parking
lot,
then
you
need
to
back
up
24
feet.
J
Have
enough
room,
that's
the
standard
parking
lot
design
in
order
to
you
know,
have
a
good,
egress
and
ingress
to
come
in
and
out
and
fire
trucks
easy
coming
out,
and
in
order
to
do
that,
he
doesn't
want
to
reduce
that
40
feet
to
35
feet.
Building,
because
it's
going
back
is
very
shallow
for
for
the
building.
A
J
A
G
A
Nail
salon
or
whatever
it
is
already
pre-existing.
Okay,
any
other
questions,
you'll
witness
anything
else.
You
want
to
say
mr
fujori
no.
E
A
E
A
Talk
about
it
all
right,
let's,
let's
have
some
discussion
about
this.
A
B
A
Let's
go
back
and
hear
a
motion
if
we
have
one
who's
got
a
motion
with
respect
to
file
pz
2022-18.
A
Okay
and
that
and
I'm
presuming
that
the
content
of
that
motion
is
for
the
five
foot.
C
A
The
request,
the
request
was,
the
request,
was,
is:
is
it
to
five
foot
or
is
it
to
elimination?
Is
your
motion,
which
is.
E
A
A
Okay,
all
right,
then
that's
the
motion
before
us
is
to
allow
variants
to
reduce
the
landscape
buffer
from
10.
E
A
Okay,
that's
the
motion.
Is
there
a
second
that's
simple,
okay
and,
and
that
would
eliminate
the
required
trees
as
as
a
matter
of
practice
as
a
practical
matter,
and
we're
going
to
include
that
in.
Is
there
a
second,
a
second
okay?
There's
a
second,
would
you
call
the
rolls
royce.
C
A
F
The
property
is
owned
gcmd
and
therefore
requires
a
20-foot
building.
Setback
from
the
front
property
line,
they're
requesting
a
variance
to
the
front
yard
setback
to
be
reduced
from
20
feet
to
10
feet.
The
applicant
claims
the
slot
is
exceptionally
smaller
than
the
average
gcmd
lot
and
also
oddly
shaped.
A
A
Weren't
here
last
time,
but
what
we
heard
last
time
was
similar,
but
they
had
requested
to
ten
foot
eight
inches
or
something
like
that,
and
the
problem
was
when
we
looked
at
the
drawing.
We
saw
that
there
was
probably
something
a
little
closer
yeah
and
so
that's
been
amended
now,
and
so
we
have
before
us
something
that
will
allow
the
house
to
fit
in
the
odd-shaped
lot:
okay,
okay!
A
K
K
A
A
A
And
from
the
standpoint
of
the
audience,
we're
shifting
one
notch
to
the
right
yeah
mr
rowe,
mr
rowe,
is
stepping
back
as
we
call
for
hearing
tz
2022-29
request
for
variance
to
the
required
rear
yard
setback
from
25
feet
to
3.64
feet
at
5495
green
briar
lane.
Could
we
have
the
staff
report
on
that?
Please
ma'am.
F
Yes,
sir
israel
mendiola
jr
is
requesting
a
variance
for
the
property
located
at
2495
greenbriar
lane
the
property
is
owned,
residential
single
family
and
therefore
requires
a
rear,
rear
yard
setback
of
25
feet.
Four
main
structure
per
ordinance
the
applicant
is
requesting
the
rear
yard
setback
be
reduced
from
25
feet
to
3.64
feet.
F
Apparently
this
was
discovered
when
there
was
an
appraisal
done
at
the
property,
and
we
do
show
that
there
was
a
variance
that
was
filed
by
the
us
department
of
housing
and
urban
development.
In
october
of
2003.,
they
were
requested
permission
to
keep
the
encroachment
of
six
inches
into
the
five
foot
side
setback
and
the
encroachment
of
22.2
feet
into
that
rear.
25
foot
setback
and
the
board
approved
the
side
set
back
request
that,
however,
they
denied
the
rear
setback
request.
F
Certification
from
the
board
of
adjustment
decision
for
you
to
see,
but
they
are
currently
the
house
is,
is
being
sold
and
the
buyer's
lender
will
not
grant
the
home
loan
to
the
house
due
to
the
non-conformity
of
the
existing
rare
yard
encroachment.
A
B
A
L
Hear
yes,
sir,
my
name
is
israel
mendola
junior,
I
am
the
owner
of
that
property.
I
put
the
49
greenbrier
lane
due
to
a
hardship
in
the
family.
We've
had
to
actually
move
so
now
we're
in
the
process
of
selling
the
house
youtube,
knowing
that
the
people
who
are
trying
to
buy
it
right
now,
their
their
la
their
their
lender
want
to
prove
it,
as
stated
before.
So
now
we're
having
trouble
trying
to
get
you
know,
get
the
variant
for
it
and
then
puts
a
hardship
on
us
and
the
family.
L
That's
actually
occupying
the
house,
because
I
I've
let
them
lease
the
property
for
now,
because
they
have
no
other
home
to
go
to
so
I'll.
Actually,
let
them
lease
it
and
then
for
me
to
until
this
gets
settled
out,
and
then
we
can
actually
have
them,
sell
them
on
that
property.
I've
owned
that
product
since
2000,
let's
say
16.
L
it
was
there
it's
an
add-on
that
I
can
see
from
the
inside.
I
know
because
there's
a
window
there's
an
actual
window
inside
by
the
kitchen.
So
I
know
it
is
an
add-on.
I've
had
no
issues
from
any
of
the
neighbors
from
left
to
right
behind
me.
No
problems
at
all.
Since
I've
been
there.
A
L
A
Right
and
you
apparently
you
got,
you
got
financing
yes,.
A
Any
other
questions
to
witness
all
right.
Anybody
else
want
to
speak
or
against
or
otherwise,
comment
on.
This
tell
us
who
you
are,
sir,
and
and
what
your
relationship
is
to
the
property.
I
Hello,
my
name
is
tim
williams,
I'm
their
realtor.
We
work
with
keller
williams,
realty
and
when
my
clients
purchased
the
property
in
2016,
they
had
an
appraisal
done,
but
the
appraiser
did
not
catch
that
this
was
over
a
setback
line
and
it
had
been
from
my
understanding,
changed
hands
two
different
times
between
2003
and
20
2016
when
they
purchased
the
property
and
because
their
appraiser
didn't
catch
it
in
whoever
had
purchased
it.
Previous
didn't
catch
it.
Now
it's
become
an
issue
for
them.
I
I
G
A
A
A
All
right
all
right,
any
other
questions
of
this
witness.
Okay,
anybody
else
want
to
speak,
say
something
else.
E
L
E
A
Ahead
questions
for
four
legal:
I'm
like
y'all
work
me
harder
now.
C
H
So
the
the
requirement
was
for
the
reduction
to
364
right.
So
basically,
if
you
do
that,
if
you
approve
the
variance
as
requested
anything
within
that
that
area
where
the
property
line
they
could
essentially
extend,
I
don't
know
the
backyard
looks
like,
but
you
know
they
put
a
pool
a
patio.
They
could
pour
concrete
up
into
that
line.
H
H
B
H
You
can
I'm
saying,
like
enforceability
wise,
I
just
don't
think
like
down
the
road
that
that
would
be
enforceable
like
later,
if
they,
if
they
did
put
something
if
they
did
poor
concrete
right
and
then
we
came
out
said
you
couldn't
do
that
we
had
to
have
like
this
whole
court
battle
behind
it.
I'm
saying
that
the
likelihood
that
we
would
be
successful,
it's
extremely
low
right.
A
H
I
think
it's
a
zigzag
mushroom
we'd
like
to
approve
the
sackback
to
include
and
then
state
that
no
existing
structures
could
be
in
that
in
that
zone
would
kind
of
be
like,
but
it's
already
it's
already
here
and
what
harm
would
it
be
like
what
harm
had
to
cause?
You
know
I'm
saying
like
so
if
I
that
poor,
concrete
or
put
something
else
down
there,
I
think
that
the
the
the
second
argument
would
be
that
it's
already
there.
A
I'd
like
to
ask
one
more
question,
too:
what
is
the?
What
is
this
pad,
or
whatever
this
is
that's
in
the
upper
left-hand
corner?
Is
that
is
that
a
structure
or
is
that
a.
H
But
when
stuff
like
this
happens,
if
like
if
they
built
up
over,
if
you,
even
if
you
allow
like
this
existing
structure,
to
be
there
right
and
it's
in
encroaching
on
any
utility
line
or
anything
like
whatever
decision
you
make
today,
doesn't
impact
the
city
from
being
able
to
say
hey,
we
need
to
get
there.
We
got
to
move
it
so
and.
H
G
If
there
are
any
utility
lines
or
sewer
lines
underground
water
lines,
I
know
most
of
the
times
there
are
services.
G
H
Mean
there's
really
no
way
way
to
know
our
engineers
aren't
here.
They
didn't
look
at
it,
but
like
logistically
there
or
logically
there
could
be
lines
under
it.
When
there's
a
structure
like
a
house
part
of
their
house,
they
would
obviously
try
to
dig
under
without
infraction
the.
G
H
G
E
H
Probably
not,
and
the
reason
that
you
can
kind
of
ascertain
that
there
was
no
permit
pooled,
is
that
our
engineers
and
our
planners
would
have
caught
that
it
would
have
been
over
or
they
they
should
have
caught
that
it
would
have
been
over
at
the
time.
They
also
would
have
told
them
like
hey
these
utilities,
and
they
would
have
had
to
come
here
before
you
guys,
and
there
would
have
been
a
previous
ruling
saying
that
hey.
G
H
Gonna
get
experience
right,
so
it's
probably
that
they
didn't.
They
didn't
pull
the
permit.
It's
probably
it's
not
extraction.
G
H
So
those
so
those
so
those
faults
not
pulling
the
permit.
I
know
we
always
talk
about
chairman
always
like
saying
we
can't
correct
someone's
problem
that
they
created
themselves
like
they
didn't.
They
didn't
build
a
house
that
they
didn't
they
weren't
responsible
for
pulling
the
permits.
They
did
their
due
diligence.
Their
survey
didn't
catch.
It
absolutely.
B
B
Of
a
cul-de-sac,
the
electrical
is
in
the
front,
you
know
everything's
up
kind
of
in
the
front,
yeah.