►
From YouTube: 12/15/2020 Community Development Board.
Description
Comments are not monitored on this platform. To make a comment, please visit www.myclearwater.com/government/council-meeting-streaming-videos or one of our social media pages.
Agenda can be found here: http://bit.ly/ClearwaterCityCouncilMeetings
A
This
meeting
the
community
development
board
is
called
to
order
at
1
pm
on
december.
What
day
do
we
have
for
the
15th
15th
there
we
go
december,
15th
welcome
everyone.
If
you
please
rise
and
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.
A
A
Please
remember
to
turn
off
your
cell
phone,
so
they've
not
become
a
distraction
during
the
meeting.
Please
also
refrain
from
having
conversations
in
this
room,
so
we
might
hear
all
the
testimony
given
today
to
ensure
a
complete
record
of
this
board's
actions.
We
ask
that
each
individual
wishing
to
speak,
including
the
applicant
speaking
to
the
microphone
at
the
podium
in
front
of
us
and
clearly
state
your
name
and
spell
your
last
name
for
the
clerk
now
I'll.
C
A
You
agendas
of
today's
meeting
are
on
a
podium
to
your
left
near
the
entry
door.
Also
on
this
podium
are
a
roster
of
the
community
development
board,
the
list
of
city
staff
experts
on
their
resumes,
the
board's
rules
procedure
and
the
annual
schedule
of
this
board.
Our
first
order
of
business
is
to
review
and
approve.
The
amends
from
last
month's
meeting
may
have
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
mix.
A
A
Please
approach
the
podium
this
for
items
not
on
today's
agenda.
Is
anybody
from
the
public
here
seeing
none
we'll
move
on
to
our
next
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
our
consent
agenda?
This
board
has
adopted
a
consent,
agenda
format
and
the
consent
items
are
identified
as
such
on
the
agenda
consent.
Agenda
items
are
those
items
for
which
the
planning
and
development
department
recommends
approval.
The
applicant
is
in
agreement
with
any
proposed
conditions
and
no
written
objections
of
the
case
have
been
received
to
date.
A
I
will
read
each
item
on
the
consent
agenda
item
and
if
any
person
wishes
to
remove
this
item
from
the
consent
agenda,
please
so
state
or
raise
your
hand,
and
we
will
remove
it
from
the
consent.
Agenda
items
removed
and
consent
agenda
will
be
heard
in
the
regular
order
of
the
meeting
items
that
remain
on
the
consent
agenda
will
be
approved
with
a
single
vote.
A
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
Fld200908027B
parcel
b,
309
coronado
drive
it's
a
level
two
application.
The
owner
applicant
is
key.
Clearwater
llc
and
the
owner
representative
is
katherine.
Cole,
hillward,
henderson.
Anybody.
We
should
have
this
item
removed,
consent
agenda,
moving
on
case
number,
lup
20201001
at
1280
and
1298
lakeview
road
level,
three
application
for
cobblestone,
one
ctc
llc
with
the
applicant
representative
being
brian
angst,
and
that's
one
of
the
cases
that
you
mentioned
brian
parker.
So
we
got
that
one
there.
Anybody
wish
to
have
that
item.
Remove
consent
agenda.
A
Seeing
none
case
number.
Seven
on
consent
agenda
is
rez,
2020-1001,
1298,
lakeview
road.
It's
a
level.
Three
application
over
owner
is
cobblestone
one
ctc
llc
with
the
applicant
representative
being
brian
j
angst.
So
anybody
who
said
this
item
removed
consent
agenda
and
that's
also
one
that
brian
has
a
conflict
with
okay.
So
I
guess
we'll
do
this
in
two
motions.
A
F
E
A
A
G
A
Second,
second
motion
made
and
seconded
any
discussion
on
emotion,
they're
being
done
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
aye
as
well
all
opposed
none
abstentions.
One
motion
passes
I'll,
also
accept
the
motion
at
this
point,
then,
on
cases
two
three
four
and
five,
which
are
all
level
two
applications.
Does
anybody
want
to
make
a
motion
on
those.
G
I
move
to
approve
items
two
three
four
and
five
on
today's
consent
agenda
based
on
evidence
in
the
record,
including
the
application
in
the
staff
report,
hereby
adopt
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
stated
in
the
staff
reports
with
conditions
of
approval.
As
listed,
do
I
have
a
second
on
the
motion.
A
Second,
promotion
made
and
secondary
discussion
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye.
All
opposed
motion
carries
unanimously.
Next
I'll
look
for
a
motion
to
approve
consent
items
in
67.
G
Yeah
I
moved
to
approve
items
six
and
seven
on
today's
consent
agenda
based
on
evidence
in
the
record,
including
the
application
and
the
staff
report,
and
hereby
adopt
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
stated
in
the
staff
reports,
with
the
conditions
of
approval.
As
listed.
A
A
Now
we
have
no
level
two
cases,
we'll
move
straight
into
the
level
three
items.
A
Make
sure
I
get
on
the
right
page
here
folks,
all
level
three
case,
such
as
the
plan
amendment
rezoning
or
development
agreement,
are
considered
legislative
hearings,
the
community
development
board
reviews,
the
application,
the
staff
reports,
correspondence
and
all
evidence
presented
today
and
makes
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council
for
level
three
applications.
The
city
council
makes
the
final
decision
the
procedure
for
all
level.
A
Three
cases
is
as
follows:
presentation
by
planning
staff
presentation
by
the
applicant
comments
by
the
public,
closing
remarks
by
the
planning
and
development
staff,
closing
remarks
by
the
applicant
closing
of
the
public
hearing
and
discussion
or
vote
by
the
board
just
check
one
more
thing
here
so
make
sure
I
miss
anything
so
our
first
level,
three
application
case
today
is
case
lup
2020-1002
at
2250
nursery
road.
The
owner
is
glaring,
gladys
and
hilker.
I
H
H
So
the
request
before
you
today
is
to
amend
the
future
land
use
map
designation
from
residential,
suburban
rs
to
residential
urban,
to
make
the
existing
density
conforming
to
allow
and
to
allow
for
future
redevelopment
of
the
property.
There's
also
a
concurrent
case
on
this
agenda.
Rec
2020-100-
and
that
is
the
companion
zoning
atlas
amendment
case.
H
So
staff's
recommendation
is
to
recommend
approval
of
the
efo
future
land
use
map
amendment
from
residential,
suburban
residential
urban,
as
it
complies
with
the
standards
in
section
4-603-f
of
the
community
development
code,
and
that
is
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
It
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
properties
and
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
as
detailed
in
the
staff
report.
It
does
not
degrade
the
loss
for
public
facilities
below
the
adopted
standards.
J
I
have
wayne
wells
our
planner
here
as
well,
so
if
that's
okay
he'll
make
a
very
quick
presentation
to
the
sport.
Thank
you.
F
F
A
I'm
going
to
interrupt
you
for
just
a
second:
are
you
asking
us
to
approve
you
as
an
expert?
If
that's
the
case
since
you're,
getting
the
resume
around
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
didn't
skip
that
detail?
Yes,
I
would
ask
for
you
to
show
me
as
a
expert
witness
you
know.
I've
seen
his
resume
before,
but
I
don't
know
if
everyone
else
has
so.
A
F
Discussion
and
you're
an
expert
in
what
land
use
and
planning
and
zoning.
A
All
right
and
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
aye
all
opposed
ocean
carries
there.
You
go
just
one
make
sure
we
got
that
detailed
one.
Go
ahead
with
your
presentation.
Sorry
interrupt.
Thank.
F
You
yes,
this
app.
This
request
is
adjacent
to
property
that
is
developed
with
multi-family
dwellings
on
the
adjoining
property
to
the
west,
which
is
residential
high
with
30
units
per
acre.
It
is
also
across
the
street
from
residential
medium,
which
is
15
units
per
acre
and
also
commercial,
which
would
allow
24
units
per
acre
of
multi-family.
F
We
feel
that
this
request
is
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
It
is
a
reasonable
increase
in
density
allowable
density.
Today
there
are,
it
would
permit
under
the
current
land
use
designation.
Two
units
per
acre
in
the
proposal
would
permit
six
units
and
their
existing
four
units.
So
by
approving
this
request,
you
would
make
the
existing
use
conforming
to
the
land
use
category.
F
It
is
a
transition
from
the
from
those
existing
land
uses,
and
we
feel
that
this
request
is
consistent
compatible
with
the
adjoining
uses.
There
are
single
family
dwellings
to
the
north
and
a
little
bit
further
to
the
east.
Their
orientations
are
to
their
budding
streets
and
not
to
this
property
attached
wellings
in
the
future.
F
D
Just
a
quick
question,
so
there's
currently
four
units,
this
change
would
allow
six
correct.
A
K
I'm
clay
gilman
with
mcfarland
ferguson,
mcmullen,
it's
g-I-l-m-a-n
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
my
client,
mr
robert
metz
m-e-t-z
and
his
wife
marvin
metz.
She
couldn't
be
here
today.
K
K
Okay,
yeah,
that
that
makes
sense
there.
We
go
for
having
unpermitted
structures
on
the
property
and
for
having
an
inoperative
vehicle
on
the
property,
yet
still,
even
after
the
city
of
clearwater
vacated
these
fines
because
they
were
brought
in
the
name
of
the
individuals
and
not
in
the
name
of
the
trust
by
which
they
were
held.
K
In
the
municipal
code
enforcement
board
meeting
minutes
from
february
2014,
the
inspector
states,
there
are
two
electric
meters
and
four
mailboxes
on
the
property
in
the
application
for
the
proposed
amendment
mr
brotherton
states
there
are
the
applicant
indicates.
There
are
four
dwelling
units
on
the
property,
two
of
which
are
not
permitted,
and
there
is
public
record.
K
Of
a
rollin
shellhouse
who
lists
his
apartment
as
2260
nursery
road
apartment,
a
which
is
on
the
premises
as
further
evidence.
The
hilkers
are
renting
these
unpermitted
structures.
We
have
images
taken
within
the
past
month
of
cars
all
over
the
lot
here
and
parked
all
over
the
grass,
which
is
another
zoning
violation.
K
K
The
property
is
in
disrepair.
If
you
look
here
this
wall
on
the
eastern
portion
of
the
property,
this
picture
taken
within
the
week
is
falling
completely
into
the
creek.
It
takes
no
zoning
or
planning
background
to
tell
you
that
that
is
a
clear
zoning
violation
and
further
proof
that
the
hilters
are
not
in
compliance
with
the
code.
K
Before
you
consider
any
proposed
amendment
that
benefits
the
property.
The
helper
should
have
to
show
a
pattern
of
compliance
with
the
code
and
that
the
proposed
amendment
will
be
a
benefit
to
the
surrounding
residential
neighborhood
and
not
a
detriment,
I'm
open
for
any
questions.
If
you
guys
have
any,
does
anybody
have.
K
No,
they
they
have
stated
there
are
four
and
there's
two
of
which
they
do
not
have
a
permit.
There
are
four
dwelling
units
in
the
application.
I
can
show
you
that
it
says
the
applicant
has
indicated
there
are
four
units
growing
on
the
property.
However,
there
is
no
record
of
permits
establishing
the
two
additional
units,
so
their
state
they
are
admitting.
There
are
four
units
when
they're,
only
zoned
for
2.5.
A
K
For
what
reason
so
I
spoke
with
mr
fuino,
and
he
said
that
they
were.
The
liens
were
brought
against
the
trust
in
which
the
property
is
held,
which
is
under
their
name,
but
the
property
appraiser
site
states
that
just
their
name,
so
they
brought
them
against
the
individuals
and
not
the
trust,
and
because
mr
hilker
stated
that
they
were
not
renting
these
these
places.
However,
like
I
said
we
have
public
records,
saying
they
were
renting,
these
apartments.
A
The
question
I
have
then,
for
mr
freno
is
is:
is
the
owner
of
the
individuals
or
the
trust,
because
I'm
seeing
here
on
our
agenda,
the
applicant
being
the
individuals
that
the
right
applicant
right
applicant
here
if
there
was
an
issue
in
the
code
enforcement
between
the
applicant
and
the
trust,
because
I
I'm
not
certain
that
I
know
the
answer
to
that
right
now.
The
main
issue.
I
Is
just
because
you're
essentially
forcing
an
order
against
an
individual
as
opposed
to
a
trust
which
is
just
a
separate
legal
entity.
This
is
where
the
satisfaction
occurred
and
then,
from
my
understanding,
was
whatever
it
was.
The
code
violation
that
was
included
in
the
violation
was
correct,
which
I
think
was
rented
out
okay
before
units,
as
opposed
to
only
okay.
So
that's
why.
A
B
I
unfortunately
because
the
the
application
was
uploaded
into
the
system.
I
don't
have
a
hard
copy
right
here
that
we
can
look
at
andre
to
double
check
that
so.
A
That's
the
application,
could
you
have
a
copy
of
the
application.
A
B
A
E
A
A
Have
the
opportunity-
and
we
can
also
cross-examine
the
outcome
and
that
part
of
it
okay,
thank
you.
That's
a
good
suggestion.
So
does
anybody
have
any
question
of
the
person
mr
metz's.
L
You
is
the
issue
that
you,
the
current
owner,
has
not
had
it
clean,
or
is
it
the
issue
that
you
don't
like
the
change
in
the
zoning,
and
why
do
you
not
like
this
and
the
reason
you
don't
like
the
zone,
changing
the
zoning,
which
is
apparently
the
same
as
all
the
other
mobile
homework
behind
it
is?
Is
that
the
issue
I
just
I'm
not
in
tune
with
the
issue
here.
K
Our
issue
is
that
a
they
currently
have
unpermitted
structures
and
they
are
not
permitted
for
what
they
have
currently.
So
they
should
not
be
able
to
apply
for
rezoning
if
they
don't
even
have
the
correct
zoning
currently,
but
also
we
do
not
want
them
to
be
upgrading
in
this
residential
neighborhood
to
have
six
dwelling
units
per
acre
when
everywhere
else
around
them
has
2.5
billions
greater
to
the.
L
K
K
K
A
A
M
This
is
kind
of
a
odd
situation,
because
there's
two
neighbors
who
don't
get
along
so
the
gentleman
who
just
spoke,
he
actually
developed
a
high
residency,
that's
up
against
his
backyard
at
28.,
and
now
he
has
a
problem.
Having
a
couple
added
to
his
front.
M
The
people,
the
extra
cars
you
took
were
a
family,
that's
living
without
with
living
with
that
unit.
Right
now
and
they're
going
to
be
out
by
next
month.
It's
an
uncle
and
a
cousin
who
are
trying
to
secure
some
place
to
live
so
they're
parking
their
cars
right
there
on
the
grass.
We
could
always
have
a
move.
No
one
said
anything.
We
didn't
know
that
they
couldn't
park
there
with
the
grass.
As
far
as
the
four
units
of
two
units
two
units
are
occupied
years
ago.
M
When
all
this
came
up,
we
had
two
units
over
top
of
one
unit
on
the
side
of
the
garage
that
were
legally
in
permit
supposedly,
but
the
upper
two
units
you
guys
came
back
in
total
area
that
they
weren't
permitted
properly.
So
he
when
we
say,
there's
four
units.
There's
four
units
there's
two
upstairs,
but
they
haven't
been
occupied
in
six
years,
seven
years,
something
like
that.
M
M
So,
like
I
said
outside
of
that,
he
said
the
walls
and
that
was
done.
That
wall
fell
probably
honestly
30
to
45
days
ago.
It
isn't
something
that's
been
sitting
there
for
years
and,
like
I
said,
if
you
do
check
county
records,
he
has
called
and
said:
hey.
You
guys
got
to
help
us
out,
because
I
can't
build
a
wall
without
a
footer.
I
can't
have
a
footer
when
your
side's
two
feet
below
and
if
you
see
the
wall,
it's
falling
into
the
it's
flowing
that
way,
because
it's
just
gone
that
way.
M
M
Like
I
said,
he's
been
a
bad
neighbor,
I
mean
I'm
just
I'm
not.
I
don't
want
to
bring
that
to
you
guys
and
all
the
things
to
it,
but
they've
been
fighting
for
years
over
stuff
over
small
stuff,
but
permanent
issues
before
he
calls
on
him
all
the
time
everything
else.
So
I
don't
want
to
involve
you
guys
in
that.
M
D
M
We're
looking
at
both
options
to
be
honest
with
you,
it's
just
gonna
depend
on
how
it
all
works
out
because
larry's
not
a
huge
fan
of
the
house
and
would
rather
just
build
like
a
triflex
across
the
front
of
it
or
something
that
makes
it
nice
and
everything.
The
house
is
probably
40
it's
block,
but
he
doesn't
like
the
design
on
the
inside
and
larry
by
definition
was
hilker
construction.
He
builds.
M
He
used
to
build
houses
he's
80
years
old,
now
he's
retired,
but
so
he
loves
building
new
structures,
but
you
don't
know
yet
we're
we're
not
we're
still
talking
hooch
and
going
through
the
logistics
of
costs
and
everything
to
see
exactly
where
it's
going
to
land.
To
be
honest
with
you,
so
you
know
but,
like
I
said
you're
more
than
welcome
to
send
somebody
over
and
look
at
those
top
units.
There's
dust
in
them
nobody's
been
upstairs
in
those
things
for
six
or
seven
years.
I
walked
in
one
the
other
day
and
storing
stuff.
M
A
Thank
you
guys
all
right
and
mr
ferrino,
I
think
I
and
and
miss
clayton.
I
think
I
answered
my
own
question
from
earlier
in
terms
of
ownership.
I
do
see
in
the
packet,
the
deed
from
the
nance
family,
into
the
hill
kurtz
individually
and
the
hillcrest
are
the
ones
who
applied
dismissally
references.
They
pursued
them
in
the
name
of
the
trust
rather
than
the
individual
name,
so
it
all
stays
consistent
from
being
a
real
estate
attorney.
A
Just
I
kind
of
got
lost
in
the
hell
there
so
to
make
sure
I
was
understood
extending
it
all,
so
it
seems
like
they
have
the
right
outcome
in
that
context,
unless
anybody
has
anything
that
says
otherwise,
that's
the
information
that
we've
got
here.
Okay,
I
just
want
to
clear
the
nut.
Since
I
brought
the
question
up
anybody
else
from
the
public
wishing
to
speak
on
this
matter,
there
being
nobody
else
from
the
public
to
speak
on
the
matter,
then
we
have
closing
remarks
by
planning
and
development
staff.
Anything
further.
J
Thanks
for
the
opportunity,
the
reason
we're
before
you
today
to
modify
the
zoning
and
amendment
land
use
is
to
clean
the
property.
Do
a
new
project
bring
everything
to
conformance.
J
I
know
travis
talked
about
not
knowing
and
discussing
things
with
us,
but
more
likely.
This
is
more
likely
we're
going
to
demolish
the
building
up
front
and
correct,
obviously,
what's
been
happening
all
these
years
forever
and
ever.
This
is
one
of
the
old
properties
that
just
has
been
there
for
a
long
long
time
and
it's
time
to
clean
it
up
so
we're
here
before
you
requesting
these
approvals,
so
we
can
fix
the
property
and,
in
short,
we're
also
in
conformance
with
the
staff.
J
So
in
all
aspects
I
think
we
meet
your
code
and
respectfully
request
your
approval.
All.
A
G
B
I
I
mean
the
issue
of
the
un:
permitted
work
is
not
resolved,
I
don't
know
if
we
have
any
pending
cases
since
the
we
vacated
the
the
liens
that
had
been
accruing,
I
don't
know.
Actually,
if
of
staff,
has
initiated
new
cases,
I
think
we
have
an
order
against
us
from
coming
on
to
the
property,
so
I'm
not
really
sure
other
than
that.
But
when
the
property
annexed,
there
were
two
legal
units
on
it
and
all
evidence
indicates
that
there
had
been
four
and
that
was
not
permitted
in
this
jurisdiction.
A
D
A
Well,
I
I
think
I
think
that
if
they
propose
a
site
plan,
it
comes
at
that
stage.
In
the
meantime,
even
if
we
approve
this
today,
the
issue
of
the
number
of
units
goes
away,
but
whether
the
structures
were
permitted
or
not
is
still
something
that
code
enforcement
could
look
at
separately
and,
if
they're
for
permits,
as
well
as
the
condition
of
the
property
that
doesn't
go
away.
It's
just
a
matter
of
the
number
of.
C
C
E
The
fact
that
a
condition
to
come
into
conformity
with
the
code
is
functionally
redundant
and
as
much
as
the
code
always
compels
whether
or
not
there's
administrative
follow-through
is
a
separate
matter.
Yeah,
adding
that
as
a
condition,
doesn't
really
change
the
nature
of
yeah
of
the
legal
obligations
on
the
property
owner
of
any
property.
For
that
matter,
okay,.
A
M
A
Okay,
all
right
do
I
have
a
motion
on
this
matter.
Then
yeah.
D
A
D
A
A
H
H
2020-1002
and
staff
recommends
approval
of
the
zoning
outlets
amendment
from
low
density
residential
to
medium
density,
residential
as
it
does
comply
with
the
standards
in
section
4-602-f
of
the
community
development
code,
and
it's
also
consistent
with
the
goals
objectives,
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
It
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
properties,
character
of
the
neighborhood,
and
it
does
not
degrade
the
loss
of
the
public
facilities
without
the
adopted
standards,
as
detailed
in
the
staff
report
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
H
J
Applicant
north
side,
engineering,
300,
south
cultural
for
water
florida
again
carl
did
a
wonderful
presentation,
we're
trying
to
clean
up
the
property
with
this
rezoning
and
language
amendment.
It
would
give
us
the
opportunity
to
do
so.
I'd
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions.
C
A
I
I
will
note
them.
I
think
that's
fine,
we're,
okay
with
that
in
that
respect,
so,
from
the
board's
perspective,
the
same
issues
they
raise
for
consideration
on
this
one
as
well.
Okay,
anybody
else
from
the
public
have
anything
else
further
to
add
all
right
there
being
none,
then
any
closing
remarks
by
staff
any
closing
remarks
by
the
applicant
none.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
that
closes
the
public
hearing
portion
of
this
one
and
discussion
and
vote
by
the
board.
C
D
A
E
And
before
we
begin,
I
guess
just
one
two
and
forgive
me
if
I'm
stubbing
over
here
a
little
much
here,
because
it's
my
understanding,
this
board
does
not
frequently
hear
appeals
correct.
For
that
reason,
I
just
wanted
to
remind
you
what
your
role
is
in
this
capacity,
an
appeal
of
a
cd
of
a
cd
of
the
community
development
code
or
level.
One
decision
is
heard
by
this
board
at
a
quasi-judicial
public
hearing
and
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing.
E
A
A
Fashion,
I
wasn't
asked
that
question,
so
thank
you
for
jumping
in
you
did
not
step
on
my
toes.
I
promise
you
that
much
all
the
help
I
can
get
is
great
all
level
two
cases
and
appeals
such
as
are
considered
acquisitional
hearings,
an
acquisition
hearing,
the
community
board
reviews,
the
application,
the
staff
report,
correspondence
and
all
evidence
presented
today
and
makes
the
final
decision
subject
to
appeal.
A
The
board
has
previously
qualified
for
the
city
staff
who
will
testify
as
experts
in
areas
of
professional
training,
education
experience,
the
list
of
city
staff
experts
in
their
resumes
are
in
the
handbook
on
the
podium
near
the
entry
door.
Any
other
professionals
desire
to
be
qualified
as
an
expert
witness
shall
also
request
the
beginning
of
the
case
and
present
a
resume
to
each
board
member.
The
board
should
determine
whether
or
not
to
qualify
the
person
as
an
expert.
A
A
The
board
will
then
determine
whether
or
not
the
grant
party
status
in
the
case
will
proceed
as
follows:
request
for
party
status,
presentation
by
planning
and
development
staff,
10
minutes
presentation
by
the
applicant
10
minutes,
presentations
by
persons
with
party
status,
5
minutes
per
party,
maximum
cross-examination
of
witnesses
by
planning
and
development
staff
cross-examination
witnesses
by
applicant
cross-examination
of
witnesses
by
persons
with
party
status
comments
by
the
public
three
minutes
per
person,
closing
remarks
by
planning
and
development
staff.
Three
minutes
closing
remarks
by
persons
granted
party
status.
A
A
Apologies,
if
I
didn't
say
that
correctly
and
the
location
is
0.224
acres
in
the
southwest
corner
of
dickinson
drive
and
moorland
drive.
Is
anybody
today
wishing
to
request
party
status?
A
A
You're
here
on
behalf
of
the
applicant:
yes,
you
don't
have
to
request
party
status
or
any
party
proceedings,
so
anybody
who's
not
a
part
of
the
proceedings
that
wish
to
be
granted
party
status
there
being
none
we'll
continue
on.
I
thought
the
names
seem
familiar,
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
we
didn't
have
that.
B
P
P
The
permit
was
not
able
to
be
approved
by
the
department
and
also
in
august.
A
comment
was
placed
on
that.
Permit
that
essentially
says
that
any
fence-
that's
located
closer
to
a
street
than
the
house,
is
limited
to
four
feet.
In
height
an
interpretation
of
this
code
provision
was
requested
by
the
applicant
in
response
to
staff
comments
on
the
permit
and
the
community
development
coordinator
issued
a
zoning
interpretation
letter
in
november,
and
the
interpretation
found
that
the
requested
six
foot
fence
cannot
be
located.
Where
proposed.
B
P
P
P
P
P
P
The
adjoining
property
does
not
have
a
six
foot
fence
along
moreland
drive
it.
It
includes
a
four
foot
high
chain
link
fence.
Now,
notwithstanding
the
material
chain
link,
fences
aren't
permitted
along
the
street
regardless,
but
the
height
of
that
fence
adjoining
the
subject.
Property
conforms
with
code.
P
P
P
P
For
consistent
and
equal
application
of
the
community
development
code,
only
the
community
development
coordinator
may
interpret
this
development
code
pursuant
to
cdc
division.
7.
community
development
coordinator
provided
an
interpretation
of
the
code
as
requested,
and
that
interpretation
is
consistent
not
only
with
the
community
development
code,
but
with
the
22-year
history
of
the
application
of
this
code.
P
The
planning
and
development
department
did
not
misconstrue
or
incorrectly
interpret
the
provisions
of
the
community
development
code,
denying
the
appeal
would
uphold
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
the
code
based
on
the
background
and
analysis
provided
and
is
documented
in
the
zoning
interpretation
letter
issued
in
november.
The
planning
and
development
department
recommends
denial
of
this
appeal
application.
P
Yes,
hedges
are
only
hedges
are
permitted
at
any
height
with
the
following
caveat.
The
only
limiting
factor
would
be
a
site
visibility
triangle
and
that
is
not
applicable
in
this
case
due
to
location.
But
yes,
the
hedge
is
fine,
in
fact,
if
the
applicant
wanted
to
plant
a
hedge
and
allow
it
to
grow
to
four
or
six
feet,
or
even
taller,
as
long
as
it's
not
in
a
site,
visibility
triangle
that
would
be
code
compliant
and
they.
P
N
Please,
mr
pat,
I
just
want.
I
F
I
Okay,
now
there
are
two
exceptions
to
the
four
feet:
maximum
height
under
the
code
correct
and
this
applicant
does
not
need
either
exception.
Correct.
So,
therefore,
is
it
your
expert
measured
opinion
that
the
decision
appealed
from
does
not
misconstrue
or
misapply
the
development
code
correct,
and
therefore,
is
it.
Your
expert
measured
opinion
that
the
appeal
should
be
denied
in
total
correct.
Thank
you.
A
O
P-A-L-A-Z-Z-O-L-O
representing
a
property
owner,
I
also
reside
at
the
property
at
1312
dickinson
drive
with
the
appeal.
We
have
some
evidence
we
would
like
to
show.
But
there's
I
mean
the
the
city
planning
committee
is
correct.
There
are
three
different
areas
when
we
come
to
an
appeal
that
have
to
be
decided.
O
We
have
to
show
that
the
interpretation
of
this
statute
has,
or
the
cdc
code
is
incorrect,
that
the
decision
that,
if
you
would
approve
the
appeal,
is
in
harmony
with
the
neighboring,
the
general
intent
purpose
of
the
code
and
that
there
will
be
no
detriment
to
the
harm
public,
health
and
safety
and
welfare
with
the.
I
don't
know
how
to
turn
this,
to
show
you.
O
O
The
great
and
powerful
oz
all
right
so
with
with
definition
as
to
what
is
a
corner
lot
when
you
get
to
corner
lot,
if
they
are
correct,
section,
3-903,
required
step,
setbacks
does
provide
that
a
corner
lot
shall
have
two
front
setbacks
and
two
side.
Setbacks,
however,
exception
a
of
3-903
extends
except
for
fences.
O
So
this
double
frontage
double
side
does
not
apply
to
corner
lots,
as
defined
by
the
cdc
directly
in
the
first
provision
of
definitions
code
corner
lots,
therefore,
would
be
defined
based
upon
the
fencing
department
or
the
fencing
portion
of
the
cdc
code,
which
is
section
9,
8-04
height
requirements.
So
there
are
two
sections
here
that
allows
for
what
the
definition
of
a
height
requirement
for
a
corner
lot
is.
O
As
you
can
see,
the
definition
includes
that
the
there
should
be
one.
It's
only
addressing
two
of
the
property
lines
when
it
comes
to
a
corner
lot.
It's
talking
about
the
placement
of
any
front
fence
on
the
side
of
the
property
where
the
property
is
addressed
would
be
considered
the
front
of
the
property
that
would
be
dickinson
drive,
as
our
property
address
is
1312.
Dickinson
drive
the
other
side
shall
be
considered
a
side.
O
It
is
clear
based
upon
the
definition
of
the
cdc
that
that
shall
be
deemed
aside
and
not
a
front
for
the
property,
as
evidenced
by
903.
There
are
not
two
fronts
when
it
comes
to
fences,
it's
only
as
to
other
setbacks,
and
then
this
subsection
provides
that
the
other
side
shall
be
considered
aside.
So
the
property
line
that
runs
along
more
lin
drive
would
be
considered
a
side
and
not
a
front
based
upon
the
statute.
O
O
If
the
neighboring
property
was
addressed
on
that
side,
that
would
make
our
side
deemed
a
front
based
upon
the
fact
that
the
neighboring
property
owner
would
have
mail
collected
there
or
a
drive
was
collected
there
in
situations
like
that,
it
would
be
deemed
a
front
and
not
a
side,
not
that
it
is
automatically
a
front
because
she
doesn't
have
a
six
foot
fence.
Now
it's
automatically
as
a
front
and
not
no
longer
a
side.
O
The
adoption
of
this
code
has
actually
been
in
place
since
july,
15
2017,
when
we
were
asked
as
to
why
other
neighboring
property
owners
have
six
foot
fences
on
the
side
of
their
property.
Four
corner
lots.
We
were
informed
that
it
has
been
a
change
in
the
code.
However,
the
code
has
not
changed
since
july
of
2000.
O
The
idea
that
the
character
of
a
property
cannot
be
changed
based
upon
her
having
a
chain
like
fence
and
us
having
a
chain-link
fence,
is
a
logical
argument
based
upon
the
fact
that
if
we
removed
both
fences,
then
at
that
point
there
would
be
no
conforming
fence
for
us
to
have
to
compete
with,
and
then
at
that
point
we
could
put
a
six
foot
fence
up
evidence
of
corner
lots
where
we
have
six
foot
fences
throughout
the
city
of
clearwater.
We
have
at
least
20
of
them
this
property
here,
one
two
one
one
hermitage
ag.
O
O
we
have
2283
habersham
drive
a
six
foot,
vinyl
fence
extends
out
beyond
the
side
of
the
house.
There
was
no
prior
permit
to
2018,
where
a
permit
was
granted
by
the
city
of
clearwater,
the
neighboring
property
at
claiborne
drive
2298
does
not
have
a
fence,
and
it's
not
in
line
with
this
character
or
replacement
of
a
fence.
O
O
We
have
three
two
six
seven
masters
drive
a
six
foot
final
fence
extending
out
from
the
side
of
the
property
ran
up
previously
along
that
adjacent
house
line
was
allowed
to
be
extended
out
beyond
up
to
the
property
line
and
run
as
a
six
foot
fence
along
that
property.
Again,
the
neighboring
property
does
not
have
a
fence,
and
it
is
was
approved
in
2017.
O
O
Two
four
one,
five
blindman
drive
a
six
foot,
vinyl
fence
was
extended
out.
Previously
there
was
a
wooden
fence
that
extended
along
the
side.
They
were
allowed
to
replace
that
fence.
With
a
six
foot,
vinyl
fence
permit
was
approved
in
2018.
The
neighboring
property
was
also
approved
in
2014
15
for
a
fence.
O
Fairbanks
drive
this
one
also
has
a
fence
that
has
been
extended
out
beyond
the
neighboring
property
does
not
have
a
permit,
so
this
would
be
a
area
where
a
non-permitted
fence
was
already
constructed.
Yet
the
neighboring
property
was
allowed
to
put
a
six-foot
fence
to
meet
that
fence,
even
though
that
fence
was
not
in
conformity
with
the
statute
based
upon
the
interpretation
that
was
stated
here
today,
344
deerfield
lane,
yet
another
six
foot
fence
that
extends
out
beyond
the
house.
This
permit
was
approved
in
2014
and
then
approved
and
replaced
again
in
2019.
O
Three
one,
seven
two
wessex
way:
six
foot
final
fence
that
extends
out
beyond
the
property
line.
This
permit
was
approved
in
2019.
You
can
see
that
there
was
no
fence
there,
and
yet
then
they
were
approved
to
put
a
fence
on
the
corner.
Lot
berman,
ave.
This
fence
was
just
approved
in
july
of
2020
over
in
traffic
hills
right
behind
our
neighborhood
subdivision,
to
put
a
six
foot
fence
that
extends
out
beyond
the
house.
The
neighboring
property
has
no
fence,
and
this
was
approved
july
of
2020..
O
Finally,
envoy
coit
court,
I'm
sorry!
This
is
two
properties
they're
over
by
plum
elementary.
This
property
fence,
as
you
can
see,
is
a
slatted
front
fence
that
does
is
not
opaque,
does
not
meet
the
character.
It
also
did
not
have
a
permit.
It
also
runs
along
the
front
of
the
property
where
mail
is
collected
for
this
property.
O
You
can
see
that
by
the
mail
address
here,
the
neighboring
property
was
allowed
to
put
in
a
six
foot
permitted
fence
that
is
not
in
conformity
with
the
neighboring
property
owner
and
was
that
permit
was
provided
and
approved
in
2001
entire
2011
after
the
statute
has
changed
so
by
granting
us
to
allow
us
to
put
up
a
fence,
it
is
not
in
it
is
in
conformity
with
the
cdc.
Clearly,
the
city
has
done
it
in
the
past
and
it's
not
against
their
rules.
O
The
final
area
that
we
have
to
prove
is
that
the
decision
will
not
be
detrimental
to
the
public
health
safety
and
general
aware
fail
well
fair.
If
anything,
it
would
be
the
opposite.
By
now,
allowing
the
privacy
fence
number
one.
There
is
a
school
that
picks
up
right
there
on
the
corner,
as
they
children
walk
by
our
house.
They
see
straight
into
our
pool
enclosure.
A
forefoot
fence
is
not
going
to
stop
them
from
being
able
to
see
this
and
and
be
drawn
towards
that
type
of
enticement
to
go
into
our
property.
O
A
chain
link
fence
cannot
be
locked,
it
can't
be,
I
mean
it
can
be,
but
padlocked,
and
at
that
point
it's
easily
accessible
to
children
in
the
neighborhood.
We
have
children
and
dogs
that
are
located
on
the
property.
Multiple
times
we've
had
strangers,
walk
up
to
the
children
on
the
outside
of
the
fence,
trying
to
communicate
with
them.
I've
had
my
dogs
fed
multiple
times
by
strangers,
who
were
just
walking
along
the
sidewalk
that
would
not
occur
if
we
had
a
six
foot
fence.
O
Finally,
there
are
new
apartment
complexes
that
are
going
up
on
the
frontage
road,
just
outside
of
harn
boulevard
along
with
so
this
is
a
copy
of
the
sex
offenders
registry.
There
are
currently
over
80
sex
offenders
that
live
within
a
quarter
mile
distance
of
our
property
address
by
not
being
able
to
replace
our
fence
with
an
opaque
fence
that
provides
privacy
to
our
children
who
are
playing
on
site.
O
It
is
a
danger
for
my
children
to
be
on
site,
while
playing
out
there
sitting
at
their
bathing
suits
playing
in
the
backyard
when
sex
offenders
are
right
there
beyond
the
neighborhood.
So,
based
upon
that
and
the
clear
interpretation
of
the
statute,
we
believe
that
the
appeal
and
interpretation
should
be
overturned.
O
We
also
had
neighboring
property
owners
who
submitted
appeals
on
our
behalf
notes
on
our
behalf,
including
our
neighboring
property
owner.
She
has
also
agreed
that
if
we
could
replace
our
fence
with
six
foot
and
harsh
fence
at
the
same
time,
that
would
be
acceptable
to
her.
However,
the
city
has
told
us
that
we
cannot
replace
the
current
four
foot
chain
link
fence
with
a
six
foot
fence,
even
if
we
place
the
neighboring
property
at
the
same
time.
Oh,
there
was
one
final
thing,
and
that
is
that
there
is.
O
There
is
currently
a
six
foot
fence
that
runs
along
the
rear
part
of
our
property
line,
and
it
extends
out
beyond
our
house
currently
so
by
allowing
us
to
put-
and
I
don't
know
where
that
picture
went,
but.
O
Okay,
there
is
a
picture
it
was
submitted
with
the
appeal
of
our
current
property
line.
There
is
a
six
foot,
five
fence
that
runs
along
the
rear,
all
the
way
out
to
the
end
of
the
property
line,
we're
only
asking
for
to
replace
that,
along
with
this
side
to
be
in
conformity
with
the
current
fence
placement.
Do
you
have.
I
L
Have
a
number
you
seem
to
be
concerned
about
people
looking
at
your
children,
what
would
you
stop
from
putting
a
on
your
screen?
You
have
a
screened
pool.
L
Could
you
put
something
along
your
screen
pool
six
foot
high
on
your
property
inside
the
pool,
so
people
couldn't
look
inside
at
your
pool?
I
mean
I'd,
see
somebody
in
a
truck
driving
by
a
big
big
truck
and
looking
over
at
your
kids.
Would
that
be
a
possibility?
Could
you
is
that
illegal
or
some
reason
that
you
can't
do
that.
O
L
O
A
O
So
section
3-903,
the
city
and
their
interpretation
letter
claims
that
corner
lot
shall
have
two
front
setbacks
and
two
sides
hit
backs.
This
is
based
upon
the
definition
section
3-903
in
the
cdc,
the
that
is
subsection
d
of
that
same
cdc.
Section,
however,
section
a
clearly
states
that
this
is
the
definitions
in
this
section
are,
except
for
fences.
A
C
A
O
Other
section
is
the
same
section
when
it
comes
to
the
fence
and
that's
section
804
as
the
fence
heights,
and
that
is
where
the
corner
lot
is
defined
as
to
the
application
as
to
a
fence,
and
it
clearly
states
that
the
placement
of
any
fence
on
the
side
of
the
property
where
the
property
is
addressed
shall
be
deemed
the
front
and
the
other
side
of
the
property
shall
be
construed
as
a
side.
E
O
So,
yes,
it
has
been
italicized,
it
is
not.
O
A
Anybody
other
questions
of
the
appellant
before
we
get
into
the
cross-examination,
we'll
probably
ask
questions
of
staff,
I'm
guessing
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
Now
we
begin
with
cross-examination
portion
and
cross-examination
by
planning
and
development
staff.
O
A
And
then
for
as
far
as
cross-examination
goes
before,
we
go
to
comments
from
the
public.
I
just
want
to
ask
myself
so
from
the
staff
standpoint.
You
heard
her
explanation
of
903a
and
804b
and
how
that
plays
together.
Can
you
give
us
your
interpretation
of
that?
So
we
can.
P
Well,
section
3-903
is
sorry,
that's
in
our
general
applicability
section,
and
that
speaks
specifically
to
what
what
a
setback
would
apply
to
not
necessarily
does
it
allow
just
carte
blanc
anything
it's
it's
saying
that
a
fence,
among
other
things,
may
be
placed
in
a
setback
so.
P
P
Correct
and
section
3-804-d,
which
was
put
up,
which
is
the
part
that
says.
P
P
And
placement
of
any
structures
and
setbacks
on
the
adjoining
properties,
not
properties
within
one
mile,
not
properties
elsewhere
in
the
city,
not
properties
in
unincorporated,
pinellas,
county
so
and
then
the
second
one.
The
other
provided
is
that
the
street
is
an
arterial
or
collector
and
just
to
put
in
perspective.
Arterials
and
collectors
are
generally
your
us-19
mcmullen
booth
road
belcher
hercules.
P
I
was
able
to
do
research
on
each
one
of
those
those
addresses
one.
I
could
find
no
evidence
of
a
permit,
so
it
looks
like
somebody
put
up
an
illegal
fence,
another
one.
It
looked.
It
looks
from
my
research
as
though
that
fence
was
put
up
prior
to
the
adoption
of
this
code,
and
I
can't
speak
to
things
that
were
built
prior
to
this
code.
I
can
only
speak
to
what
this
code
applies
to
all
the
others.
P
I
was
able
to
do
research
based
on
google
street
views
and
building
permits.
It
looks
like
each
one
of
those
was
able
to
put
up
a
six-foot
fence
based
on
that
provision
that
there
was
an
existing
six-foot
fence,
and
that
was
the
character
by
which
an
approval
was
granted
for,
for
that
particular
subject
fence
and
in
this
example
I
don't
have
an
adjoining
six
foot
fence
to
to
look
at
to
to
say
that
it
meets
this
provision
of
the
code.
P
G
Let
me
just
ask
for
a
point
of
clarification.
This
is
all
in
that
morningside
subdivision.
Is
that
right
so
yeah,
so
if
they
had
a
pre-existing
six-foot
fence
where
they
want
to
put
this
a
wooden
fence
or
a
chain-link
fence
there?
That
was
pre-existing
and
they
made
this
application
to
replace
it
with
the
proposed
vinyl
fence.
We
would
do
what.
P
Well,
it
probably
was,
but,
but
the
point
is
that
the
adjoining
property
had
a
six-foot
fence
in
place
and
that's
what
I
used
3-804
d1,
which
is
that
the
character
of
the
adjoining
property
enables
the
provision
of
the
requested
fence.
P
So
many
of
the
examples
that
were
provided
it
looks
as
though
what
the
situation
was
is
that
a
fence
was
desired,
whether
it
was
a
replacement
or
not,
is
beside
the
point.
A
six-foot
fence
was
desired,
the
adjoining
property
had
an
existing
six-foot
fence
and
that's
what
we
can
look
to
and
say:
okay,
they
meet
3-804-d
one.
The
adjoining
property
has
a
fence
at
six
feet,
that's
the
character,
and
now
the
subject
property
can
can
match
up
with
that.
Q
Let
me
ask
a
question
for
verification,
so
we're
referencing
the
neighboring
fence.
That's
currently
a
four
foot
chain
link
fence.
I
believe
you
mentioned
that
that
fence
is
currently
not
code
compliant
with
regard
to
material
with
regard
to
material.
So
if
that
neighbor
was
to
replace
that
fence
with
a
six
foot
high
fence
that
meets
code
as
they're,
not
on
a
corner
lot,.
P
Q
G
Do
you
guys,
do
I
mean
I'm
not
honestly,
I'm
not
fully.
I
didn't
look
at
3-903
prior
to
this
meeting
and
and
a
and
look
further
into
it
or
anything
like
that.
So
I'm
you
know
I'm
a
little
conflicted
when
we
have
conflicting
things
in
the
code
as
it
seems
to
me
sitting
here
right
now.
You
hear
one
side
and
hear
the
other
side
of
it.
I
mean
if
I
may,
but
that's.
C
G
P
A
Well,
it's
probably
more
appropriate
you
answer
or
respond
to
that
during
your
closing
remarks
and
I
think
that
we're
almost
there,
but
I
do
want
to
go
pop
a
comment
first
and
then
go
along
with
the
rest
of
the
meeting,
and
you
can
address
that.
I
don't
think
that
was
really
a
question.
I
think
it
was
more
of
an
observation
of
johnson
okay.
So
no
questions
or
cross-examination
we'll
continue
with
comments
from
the
public.
So
anybody
here
from
the
public
today
that
wish
to
speak
on
this
matter.
P
P
It
doesn't
speak
to
height
or
anything
like
that
material
offenses,
just
as
generally
speaking,
fences
are
exempt
from
setbacks.
So,
for
example,
on
the
the
two
sides
of
this
property
along
the
west
and
south,
there
are
setbacks
of
five
feet.
Setbacks
are
for
houses,
pools,
patios,
decks,
sheds,
gazebos,
anything
like
this.
P
However,
we
don't
require
that
you
locate
a
fence
five
feet
off
the
property
line.
3-903.
The
purpose
of
that
section
is
to
allow
a
fence
to
go
along
that
property
line,
and
that
is
it.
That
is
the
limit
of
that
section.
Any
other
discussion
about
what
3903
means,
as
far
as
height
of
fencing,
landscape
requirements,
material
limitations.
P
P
It's
3-804-d,
with
the
two
exceptions,
provided
one
you're,
consistent
with
the
character
of
the
adjacent
property
which
in
this
case
the
adjacent
property
has
a
four
foot
fence,
and
that
is
the
character
adjoining
has
to
be
adjoining
within
one
mile,
not
elsewhere
in
the
county
or
the
city
has
to
be
adjoining
and
the
second
one
is
collectors
and
arterials.
Clearly,
you
know
also
not
applicable
there.
Any
other
questions.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer.
O
Closing
remarks
that
I
guess
the
only
thing
we
have
to
say
is:
if,
if
section
9-903
does
not
apply,
then
the
definition
in
that
same
section
that
defines
corner
lot
as
having
two
fronts
and
two
sides
would
also
not
apply
in
that
argument,
then
the
reliance
would
only
be
upon
section
804-d,
which
does
state
that
the
other
side
of
the
property
shall
be
considered
a
side
and
event
shall
be
erected
this
area
in
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
3-804-b
period,
provided
it
does
include
the
provided
part
portion.
O
However,
in
the
interpretation
of
this,
it's
that
the
character
and
placement
of
any
structure
this
structure.
So
again,
if
the
neighboring
property
had
a
front,
then
this
would
be
deemed
a
front
for
that
side
of
the
property.
I
don't
believe
that
the
term
character
in
this
context
applies
to
the
character,
the
type
of
fence
on
the
neighboring
structure.
If
that
was
true,
then
all
of
the
attachments
that
we've
provided
all
of
the
photos
that
we've
provided,
where
the
neighboring
property
has
zero
fence
should
not
have
been
approved
by
the
permits.
O
However,
at
least
20
examples
here
where
fences
were
placed
where
the
neighboring
property
owner
has
zero
fence,
it
does
not
mean
that
they
are
meeting
the
character
of
the
neighboring
property
owner,
as
there
is
no
fence
on
the
neighboring
property
when
it
comes
to
it
with
the
with
the
neighboring
property
fence.
It's
a
circular
argument.
We
can't
construct
defense
if
the
neighbor
doesn't
have
a
fence.
The
neighbor
can't
construct
a
fence
if
we
don't
have
a
fence.
However,
that's
not
the
way
it's
been
interpreted
when
others
have
applied
for
permits.
O
As
to
a
current
six-foot
fence,
I
did
find
the
pictures
where,
along
the
back
portion
of
our
property,
there
is
a
six
foot
fence
that
extends
out
beyond
the
front
of
the
fence,
which
would
establish
that
there
is
a
six
foot
fence
on
the
neighboring
property,
because
this
is
her
fence.
It
is
not
our
fence,
as
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
the
finished
side
is
facing
our
lot.
This
is
a
fence
that
is
existing
on
the
neighboring
property
owner's
property.
O
That
is
six
foot
that
does
extend
beyond
our
pool
enclosure,
we're
only
seeking
to
replace
that
fence
and
extend
replacing.
We
could
replace
our
fence,
we
could
replace
our
fence
and
the
neighboring
property
owner
to
keep
up
with
the
character
of
the
neighboring
property
owner.
That's
all
we're
asking
to
do
here.
O
E
Close
the
public
hearing
and
transition
to
discussion
I
just
again
because
it
is
an
unorthodox
posture
for
this
body.
We
should
remind
you
it's
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
and
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding.
You
are
not
making
the
law,
but
rather
applying
the
law,
to
establish
facts
based
on
the
competent
substantial
evidence
provided
to
you
today,
as
you
make
that
determination
in
a
quasi-judicial
posture,
you're,
typically
looking
to
criteria,
and
that
was
criteria
policies
and,
in
your
code,
section
4-504
says,
for
community
development
board
appeals
in
order
to
grant
an
appeal.
E
This
body
shall
find
that,
based
on
the
substantial
competent
evidence
presented
by
the
applicant
or
other
party
that
each
and
every
one
of
the
following
criteria
are
met,
one
the
decision
to
peel
from
misconstrued
or
incorrectly
interpreted
the
provisions
of
this
development
code
and
two
the
decision
of
the
community
development
board
will
be
in
harmony
with
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
this
development
code.
And,
finally,
three.
The
decision
of
the
community
development
board
will
not
be
detrimental
to
the
public
health
safety
and
general
welfare.
E
A
You
very
much
all
right,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
close.
The
public
comment
at
this
point
pulp
a
portion
of
the
hearing
and
go
with
our
discussion
by
the
board.
Does
anybody
have
any
comments
on
this?
We
discuss
it
among
ourselves
or
emotion,.
D
I'm
just
reading
the
the
two
items
here
and
I
think
the
key
in
the
first
one
is
adjoining
properties
and
then
the
second
one
I
mean
it
really
doesn't
apply
the
arterial
collector.
So
I
I
don't
see
how
we
could
overturn.
I
think
the
staff
has
really
scrutinized
this
and
I
mean
the
two
items
are
there
and
that's
that's
what
we
have
to
vote
on.
I
don't
see
any
way
to
overturn
either
one
of
those
anybody.
Q
Else
that
made
a
comment
on
this
I'd
agree.
With
that
comment,
I
think
staff
made
a
really
strong
case
as
to
their
understanding
of
the
code
and
their
interpretation
of
the
code,
and
I
mean
for
me
it
kind
of
seals
it
that
if
the
neighbor
themselves
was
to
apply
to
replace
the
fence,
they
would
also
be
having
to
comply
with
the
four-foot
fence
limit,
in
which
case
it
further
amplifies
cdc
section
3804.
A
I
do
think
that
that
3903
d
does
apply,
because
you
have
to
look
at
the
setbacks
first
and
then
say
what
can
be
built
within
setbacks,
and
then
you
look
at
the
qualifications
that
are
804.,
so
I
do
think
it's
consistent
in
that
regard,
both
with
303
a
and
d
in
the
way
that
I've
generally
looked
at
the
interpreting
various
code
provisions
as
time
has
gone
on.
I
think
that
brian
issue
pointed
out
it's
very
specific
as
to
the
adjoining
properties
for
consistent
consistency.
A
A
That's
one
really
reason
this
for
a
motion
on
this.
As
far
as
the
format
that
would
apply,
since
we
don't
actually
have
an
appeal.
E
You're
moving
either
to
a
hold
or
to
overturn
as
you
adapt
it
based
on
the
scripts
and
things
I
I
would
say
that
the
the
the
level
two
that
typically
applies
in
your
quasi-judicial
is
probably
appropriate.
I'm
only
skimming
because
I'm
a
little
less
familiar,
obviously
with
what
you
right,
but
I
would
say
that
the
level
two
application,
if
I
move
to
approve
this
case
number,
would
just
be.
I
move
to
uphold
or
I
move
to
overturn
yeah.
C
A
E
Consistent
with
your
charge,
in
this
capacity,
your
powers
and
duties.
A
Is
that
okay,
that's
how
I
think
would
be
best
phrase.
So
it's
the
first.
A
Yeah,
the
first
one
it
would
be.
For
example,
if
you
were,
if
you
were
agreeing
with
the
city,
you
would
say
I
moved
to
uphold
the
zoning
interpretation
letter
of
number
nine
and
then
the
rest
of
it
goes
on
the
same
way
in
that
context,
and
if
you
did
not,
if
you,
if
you
agree
with
the
appellant,
then
you
would
do
the
second
one
I
said
it
would
be
overturn
instead
of
deny.
D
A
B
And
some
of
the
feedback
you
all
gave
us
was
that
there
was
good
information
there,
but
it
was
pretty
dense
and
that
maybe
we
could
look
at
ways
of
making
it
a
little
more
user-friendly,
so
our
staff,
mainly
lauren
and
public
communications,
have
put
together
the
document
that
you
received.
Prior
to
the
meeting,
we
tried
to
use
a
variety
of
formats,
including
a
question
and
answers
the
value
talks
about
what
is
the
cdb?
What
kind
of
cases
do
they
hear?
How
can
you
participate?
B
You
use
some
charts
to
try
to
break
up
process
oriented
material,
and
then
we
sort
of
shift
midway
to
be
descriptive
of
how
a
cdb
meeting
actually
takes
place,
and
then
we
go
back
to
a
question
and
format
a
question
and
answer
format.
That
really
explains
what
a
quasi-judicial
hearing
is.
How
can
people
participate?
What
is
party
status
all
about
and
then,
when
you
get
to
the
end,
there's
a
shorter
description
of
legislative
cases
and
then
a
whole
a
little
section
about
appeals,
so
we'd
love
to
have
your
feedback?
B
A
I
looked
through
it,
I
liked
it.
I
thought
it
was.
I
thought
the
way
it
was
broken
up
was
was
structurally
was
helpful
as
well
as
some
of
the
images
making
it
a
little
less
overwhelming
and
intimidating.
A
I
said
a
little
less
you
can't
I
mean
I
I
deal
with
that
kind
of
process
on
a
daily
basis,
so
I
know
I
know
this
situation,
but
I
think
that
it
does.
It
was
not
quite
cbb
for
dummies,
but
it
helped
a
lot
yeah.
B
All
right,
well,
our
plan,
we'll
probably
make
a
few
more
tweaks
to
it
and
then
we'll
get
that
out
and
then
I
believe
that
jordan
bahar
had
suggested
that
we
have
a
link
in
our
notices,
so
we'll
be
we'll
be
doing
that
as
well.
I'm
going
to
distribute
this
probably
at
the
clearwater
neighborhoods
coalition
and,
of
course,
we'll
be
putting
it
on
our
website
as
well,
so
that
people
can
access
it.
So
thank
you
for
your
feedback
on
that.
B
The
last
thing
that
I
wanted
to
bring
up
is
that
for
years
I
know
our
meetings
have
started
at
one
o'clock
and
I
always
found
that
to
be
a
little
tight
for
working
folks
who
want
to
try
to
get
in
a
lunch.
Maybe
before
they
come
here,
and
I
was
wondering
if
you
all
found
one
o'clock
works
for
you,
if
or
if
maybe
1
30
would
give
you
a
little
bit
more
time.
So
you
can
get
in
lunch
before
you
head
here
for
your
meeting.
B
C
A
Give
it
to
give
us
some
thought,
but
I
I
personally
like
the
idea,
but
don't
change
it
on
my
account.
One
question
I
had
with
today:
it
seemed
to
me
on
the
appeals
side
of
things
that
oftentimes
the
appellate
would
get
a
chance
to
speak
first
rather
than
the
staff
in
a
real
appeal
in
a
different
context,
and
it
occurred
to
me
when
we
already
started.
I'm,
like
you
know,
that's
something
we
should
think
about
whether
that
should
be
addressed
in
our
procedure
if
that
gets
flipped.
A
E
Too
judicial
on
an
appeal
because
you're
presenting
new
evidence
in
a
way,
I
will
inform
your
board
attorney
and
let
them
make
a
sage
decision
on
the
matter.