►
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
Looks
like
we
might
have
mr
patracky
joining
us
I'll,
give
him
a
few
seconds
and
we'll
get
rolling.
A
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
if
you
can
see
the
evidence
is
presented
and
you
can
see
what's
on
the
screen,
then
that
will
be
beneficial
in
that
respect,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
get
started
and
hopefully
get
the
camera
to
kind
of
come
on
at
some
point
as
we
go
along
here
good
afternoon.
Everyone
and
welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
community
development
board,
which
is
called
to
order
at
1pm
on
september
15
2020.
A
to
ensure
public
safety
and
comply
with
the
governor's
safer
at
home
order
in
response
to
the
covid19
virus.
The
clearwater
community
development
board
is
holding
a
public
meeting
using
communications
media
technology
pursuant
to
executive
order.
Number
20-69
issued
by
the
office
of
governor
ron
desantis
on
march
20
2020
municipalities
may
conduct
meetings
of
their
governing
boards
without
having
a
quorum
of
its
members,
present
physically
or
any
specific
location
and
utilizing
communications
media
technology
such
as
telephonic
or
video
conferencing,
as
provided
by
section
120.545b2
of
the
florida
statutes.
A
This
meeting
is
being
held
through
the
zoom
platform
and
broadcast
live
on
the
city's
website
at
https,
colin
backslash
backslash
www.mycloilwater.com
government,
slash
council
dash
meeting
dash
streaming
dash.
Videos,
and
also
on
youtube
at
www.youtube.com
myclearwater,
as
well
as
the
following:
publix
access
tv
channels,
spectrum
channel,
638,
frontier
channel,
30
and
wow
channel
15..
A
If
you
want
to
participate
in
today's
meeting
and
are
not
requesting
party
status,
you
may
call
in
to
562-4646
and
be
placed
on
air
to
speak
to
an
individual
item
or,
like
any
other
cdb
meeting
like
community
development
board
meetings.
You
may
provide
public
comment
at
the
main
library
council
chambers,
100
north
osceola
avenue
we're
going
to
continue
now
with
our
agenda
and
start
with
the
pledge
of
allegiance.
A
A
This
board
consists
of
seven
members
and
one
alternate
who
are
appointed
by
the
city
council
and
serve
voluntarily.
I
am
michael
buccas.
I
will
introduce
the
other
board
members
board
attorney
and
city
staff
and
as
they
each
acknowledge,
they
are
present
that
they
can
see
the
video
feed
and
hear
the
meeting
vice
chairman
escapish.
A
Alternate
member
elizabeth
van
scoyk,
I
don't
believe
she's
on
today,
jay
daniel
attorney
for
the
community
development
board.
A
A
A
Thank
you
very
much.
If
you
are
attending
in
council
chambers,
please
remember
to
turn
off
your
cell
phone,
so
it
did
not
become
a
distraction
during
the
meeting
to
ensure
a
complete
record
of
this
board's
actions.
We
ask
that
each
individual
wishing
to
speak,
including
the
applicant,
speak
into
the
microphone,
clearly
state
your
name
and
spell
your
last
name
for
the
clerk
first
item.
Our
agenda
is
approval
of
minutes
from
the
last
month's
meeting.
We
actually
have
two
sets
of
minutes
to
approve.
A
First
would
be
the
minutes
for
june
16
2020..
If
the
board
members
have
had
a
chance
to
review,
do
I
have
a
motion
to
approve
this.
A
Opposed
okay
about
pastor
ananimus,
the
next
seven
minutes
or
from
our
meeting
on
september
3rd,
where
we
approved
our
procedures
for
today.
Do
I
have
a
motion
to
accept.
A
Chris
annaskevich
motion
made
and
seconded:
is
there
any
discussion
there
being
none
all
in
favor
say?
Yes?
Yes,
yes,
any
opposed.
A
A
A
A
A
For
our
quadrijudicial
hearings,
all
level
two
cases,
such
as
flexible
development,
are
considered
quasi-judicial
hearings
in
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
The
community
development
board
reviews
the
application,
the
staff
report,
correspondence
and
all
evidence
presented
today
and
makes
the
final
decision
subject
to
appeal.
A
These
resumes
were
provided
to
the
board
in
advance
of
the
meeting,
and
the
board
should
determine
whether
or
not
to
qualify
the
persons
as
an
expert
and
in
what
field
of
study
at
the
beginning
of
each
level
2
case,
I
will
ask
that
anyone
who
requested
party
status
by
5
pm
3
business
days
prior
to
the
meeting
to
join
the
meeting
and
state
your
reasons
party
status,
may
be
granted
that
the
person
requesting
such
stats
demonstrates.
He
is
a
substantially
affected
person.
A
The
board
will
then
determine
whether
or
not
to
grant
party
status.
The
case
will
then
proceed
as
follows:
requests
for
party
status,
presentation
by
planning
and
development
staff,
10
minutes
maximum
presentation
by
applicant
10
minutes
maximum
presentation
by
persons
with
party
status,
five
minutes
per
party,
maximum
cross-examination
of
witnesses
by
planning
and
development
staff;
five
minutes
maximum
cross-examination
of
witnesses
by
applicant
five
minutes
maximum
and
cross-examination
witnessed
by
persons
with
party
status.
Five
minutes
maximum
comments
by
the
public
three
minutes
per
person
and
a
reminder
to
anyone
who
wants
to
make
comments.
A
You
should
call
in
to
562-4646
when
the
case
starts.
At
the
time
of
the
public
comment,
you
will
be
placed
on
the
air
closing
remarks
by
the
planning
and
development
staff
free
minutes,
maximum
closing
remarks
by
persons
granted
party
status,
three
minutes
maximum
and
close
remarks
by
applicant
three
minutes
maximum.
Then
we
will
close
the
public
hearing
we'll
have
discussion
and
vote
by
the
board.
A
As
a
reminder,
anyone
in
attendance
today
who
plans
to
speak
to
an
agenda
item
will
need
to
be
sworn
in
by
the
clerk
of
court
prior
to
speaking
for
today's
meeting.
This
will
be
done
at
the
beginning
of
each
case.
After
has
been
read
into
the
record,
persons
providing
public
comment
by
phone
will
be
sworn
in
individually
and
to
ensure
that
you
have
been
sworn
in
for
the
record.
A
We
ask
each
individual
wish
to
speak,
including
the
applicant
speak
into
the
microphone,
clearly
state
your
name
and
spell
your
last
name
for
the
clerk
and
also
affirm
that
you
have
been
sworn
in
prior
to
starting
your
testimony
or
comments
with
those
procedures
out
there.
Let
me
go
ahead
and
my
computer's
beeping
at
me.
In
the
background,
let
me
turn
that
off
and
we'll
begin
with
the
first
case
on
today's
agenda.
A
2009.08026A
parcel
a
at
309
coronado
drive.
The
applicant
is
key:
clearwater
llc,
the
representative
is
hush
govi
at
northside
engineering
and
the
location
is
at
the
north
southwest
corner
of
3rd
street
and
hampden
drive,
and
the
board
is
reviewing
proposed
amendments
to
approved
level
2,
flexible
development,
application.
A
Fld2009-08026,
so
do
we
have
anybody
on
this
case
that
has
requested
party
status?
My
understanding
is
that
there's
no
request
for
party
status
at
all
today.
If
someone
can
said
he
can
confirm
that.
A
Okay,
so
I'll
skip
that
for
the
rest
of
the
cases
and
on
this
one
as
well
continuing
on,
then,
will
all
persons
I'll
ask
at
this
time.
Anyone
who
is
speaking
to
this
agenda
item
that's
participating
via
zoom
or
in
council
chambers,
including
the
applicants,
persons
granted
party
status
staff
and
persons
wishing
to
provide
public
comment
to
be
sworn
in.
J
A
Okay,
very
good,
we'll
begin
now
with
presentation
by
staff.
A
M
N
C
Know
what
was
it
written.
C
C
The
proposal
in
front
of
you
will
provide
for
a
20-slip
dock
that
will
both
be
a
commercial
dock
and
a
marina
facility
and
the
difference
between
a
commercial
dock
and
the
marina
facility
is
that
a
commercial
dock
is
accessory
to
a
hotel
or
attached
dwellings.
In
this
case,
a
hotel
and
a
marina
facility
has
the
ability
to
have
the
slips
individually
leased
or
rented
out.
C
One
point
that
I
want
to
bring
up
is
that
the
site
was
originally
approved,
and
this
is
the
overall
site
there's
two
companion
sites.
Both
of
them
are
addressed
as
309
coronado
there's
this
one,
which
is
08026a
and
a
companion
application,
08027a.
C
C
Of
approval
for
this
one
other
two
other
differences
just
to
point
out
the
overall
project,
both
a
and
parcel
b
were
approved
with
260
hotel
units
they've
been
built
with
255
units.
The
parking
garage
was
approved
with
302
parking
spaces
and
it
has
299
spaces.
C
Part
of
this
submission
includes
a
parking
demand
study
and
the
long
and
short
of
the
parking
demand
study
is
that
there's
at
least
174
spaces
available
at
any
given
time,
and
with
that,
if
there
are
any
questions,
I'd
be
happy
to
try
to
answer
it.
A
L
O
O
Mr
perry,
in
his
staff
report,
covers
all
of
the
beach
by
design
criteria,
so
it
may
have
been
somewhat
confusing
that
this
is
an
existing
hotel
already
and
the
only
addition
that
this
request
will
modify
the
previous
approval
to
include
the
docs.
We
have
terry
scapic
with
woods,
consulting
who
is
the
doc
consultant
who
prepared
the
dock
portion
of
the
application
and
hush
kahovy
with
north
side
engineering
who
his
firm
worked
up
with
the
site
plan.
O
Sean
gracie
is
the
applicant's
representative
and
is
also
joining
remotely
to
answer
any
questions.
So
with
that
items
one
and
two
on
your
agenda,
as
mr
perry
said,
they
both
are
incorporate
the
approvals
for
these
docs,
since
there
are
two
different
parcels
that
were
originally
approved
for
this,
even
though
it's
one
parcel,
there
are
two
agenda
items
for
the
same
common
dock
that
will
serve
these
two
branded
hotels.
A
Okay,
I
see
that
you're
having
anybody
on
the
phone
that
no
calls
and
so
on
this
matter.
Is
there
any
cross-examination
by
either
the
staff
or
the
applicant.
C
A
So
let's
go
ahead
and
proceed
then,
and
close
the
public
hearing
portion
of
this
and
have
discussion
amongst
the
board?
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
or
a
motion.
O
A
H
Chairman,
I
moved
to
approve
items
one
and
two
on
today's
agenda
based
on
evidence
in
the
record,
including
the
application
in
the
staff
reports.
They
hereby
adopt
the
finance
effect
and
conclusions
of
law
stated
in
the
staff
report.
With
the
conditions
approval
is
listed.
A
Jay
I've
got
a
question
for
you
when
I
read
the
case.
I've
only
read
the
description
for
the
first
one.
They
are
substantially
similar,
but
I
didn't
read
the
case
number
for
8027
a.
Is
that
an
issue
I
just
want
to
make
sure
procedure.
We
don't
have
a
problem.
I
A
Fld2009-08027A,
which
is
parsley
and
partially
both
the
309
coronado
drive
with
the
owner
applicant
being
a
key
clearwater
llc,
and
the
motion
applies
to
both
agenda
items,
one
and
two.
So
it's
clear
on
the
record
we'll
go
ahead
and
do
a
roll
call
vote
on
this.
So
we
have
the
record
clear
I'll
begin.
Vice
chairman
eskewicz.
P
Q
Q
A
John
quitrocky,
yes
and
myself
share
yes,
motion
passes
unanimously,
and
that
concludes
agenda
items.
One
and
two
on
today's
agenda.
A
A
716
bay
way
boulevard
unit
one
slip,
one,
the
owner
applicant
is
david
r
phillips.
The
representative
is
jake
jensen
at
docs
inc.
The
location
is
the
north
side
of
bayway
boulevard,
approximately
150
feet
east
of
park
of
the
parkway
drive,
and
we
review
a
proposed
boat
lifting
association
with
an
existing
multi-use
dock
greater
than
500
square
feet
in
area.
J
Would
you
raise
your
right
hand?
Please
do
you
swear
for
the
testimony
you're
about
to
give
us
the
entire
truth.
R
R
A
Right
continuing
on
then
presentations
by
staff.
L
E
A
C
C
A
All
right
does
anybody
have
any
questions
of
staff
on
this
matter.
R
Good
afternoon
mr
chair
and
board
members,
thank
you
all
very
much
for
accommodating
this
meeting.
Virtually
really
appreciate
all
the
work
that
the
staff
and
the
board
members
have
done
to
keep
the
development
review
process
going
forward
in
these
unprecedented
times.
This
is
a
very
straightforward
application.
R
It's
an
existing
dock
and
an
existing
residential
boat
slip,
we're
just
seeking
to
add
a
boat
lift
to
an
existing
residential
boat
slip
and
under
the
code
adding
the
boat
lift,
makes
it
a
multi-use
dock
which
is
subject
to
the
commercial
dock
standards,
although,
as
mr
perry
said,
it
will
be
for
private
use
only
of
the
current
residents,
no
gassing
or
repairs,
or
anything
like
that
and
no
access
to
the
public.
R
We
also
received
an
affidavit
of
non-objection
from
the
neighboring
sandpipers
cove
condominium
association,
incorporated
and
also
from
the
abutting
unit
owner
george
maisel,
so
both
of
the
immediately
impacted
property
owners
are
in
favor
of
the
application.
With
that
we'll
answer
any
of
the
questions
you
have
and
again,
thank
you
very
much.
A
Welcome
does
anybody
on
the
board
have
any
questions
of
the
applicant,
seeing
none
is
there
any
cross-examination
by
staff.
L
R
A
Is
there
any?
Are
there
anybody
in
the
public
at
the
either
at
chambers
or
live
needs
to
speak
on
this
matter,
and
it
would
appear
that
we
have
no
calls
on
this
item
either.
A
That
being
the
case,
any
closing
remarks
by
either
the
applicant
or
staff.
A
F
Chairman,
I
move
to
approve
number
three
on
our
agenda
based
on
the
evidence
and
testimony
presented
in
the
application,
the
staff
reporting
at
today's
hearing
and
hereby
adopt
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
state
in
the
staff
report
with
conditions
of
approval.
As
listed.
A
We
have
a
motion
to
have
a
second
second
seconded
by
brian
barker,
doing
a
discussion
on
the
motion
there
being
none.
Then
I
will
go
ahead
and
do
a
roll
call
vote
again.
Vice
chairman
escaped
yes,
brian
barker,
yes,
jordan,
behar,
yes
mike
flannery,
yes,
mary
lou,.
H
A
A
Thank
you
thank
you
for
being
here
as
well,
by
virtual
means
continuing
on
now
with
case
number
four
on
our
agenda
cases.
A
Fld2016-11037,
a
slash
plt
2020-07004
at
400,
north
myrtle
avenue
and
410
711
777
maple
street
the
applicant,
is
the
city
of
clearwater
and
representative,
is
neil
strzello
and
is
located
in
the
southwest
corner
of
maple
street
north
myrtle
avenue.
I'm
reviewing
a
proposed
amendment
to
approve
a
level
two
flexible
development
application.
A
So
on
this
matter
here
chris
is
just
the
one
that
you
have
a.
E
Mr
chairman,
I
I
have
a
conflict
of
interest
on
this
proposal.
On
this
case
I
was
the
landscape
architect
on
the
project,
so
I
will
recuse
myself
from
voting.
Okay.
A
A
I'm
seeing
that
we
have
a
participant
on
that's
muted,
right
now
under
oh
there
we
go
now.
We
have
instead
of
samsung
we're
seeing
a
person
in
the
name,
edward
smith.
Okay,
are
you
here
on
this
matter,
mr
smith
and
you're
muted,.
A
Okay,
thank
you
all
right,
mr
perry's
been
proposed
as
an
expert
by
staff.
Do
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
so
move
jordan
who's?
Second,
to
that.
A
Okay,
thanks
mike
any
discussion,
all
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
aye,
aye,.
H
A
I
think
we
have
no
votes
there
or
motion
passes.
Is
there
anybody
who
has
not
been
sworn
in
yet
that
is
either
in
the
on
zoom
or
in
the
gallery
in
the
champ
in
chambers?
Yes,.
J
C
Hello
again,
this
is
an
amendment
to
an
existing
approved,
flexible
development
application.
This
is
for
the
clearwater
gas
department.
The
only
reason
that
this
application
would
have
to
come
back
before
the
board
is
for
the
addition
of
0.41
acres
of
vacated
east
avenue,
which
is
you
can
see
at
the
bottom
of
the
site
plan.
C
C
There
are
no
outstanding
conditions
of
approval,
with
the
exception
of
a
further
clarification
of
condition,
seven
of
the
original
approval,
and
it
provides
additional,
like
I
said,
additional
clarification
as
to
the
provision
of
up
to
14,
but
no
less
than
12
wayfinding
signs,
and
that
was
to
get
additional
height
as
part
of
that
original
approval.
C
G
Good
I
this
mike
flannery
yeah,
just
a
short
one:
could
you
sort
of
go
over
the
yellow
zone
and
should
explain
how
what
happens
with
the
railroad
trend.
C
The
railroad
tracks
stay
that
yellow
area
was
part
of
the
east
avenue
right-of-way.
It
wasn't
really
an
actual
used
road
and
it's
been
vacated
and
typically
with
a
right-of-way
vacation.
Half
of
it
goes
to
one
joining
property
and
the
other
half
goes
to
to
the
other
adjoining
property.
So
this
vacation
amounts
to
0.41
acres.
C
The
railroad
tracks
are
not
affected,
they're
staying
exactly
where
they
are,
but
the
right-of-way,
the
property
will
be
absorbed
by
the
greater
clearwater
gas
department,
property.
A
N
Good
afternoon
board
members,
my
name
is
neil
stralo,
I'm
a
senior
planner
with
vhb.
My
address
is
501
east
kennedy,
boulevard
suite
1010
tampa
florida
33602.
The
last
name
is
s-t-r-a-l-o-w,
as
mentioned
other
project
teammates
from
clearwater
gas
long
and
associates
and
vhb
are
available
in
case
additional
information
is
required.
N
The
subject
site
is
the
clearwater
gas
facility
governmental
use.
The
site
was
previously
approved
by
the
board
in
2017
and
it's
been
redeveloped.
This
application
represents
the
new
conditions
that
were
made
during
site
construction
and,
as
noted
in
the
staff
report,
it
includes
the
addition
of
0.41
acres
along
the
csx
railroad
line
adjacent
to
the
property.
Mr
flannery,
your
question,
the
existing
railroad
tracks
remain
and
are
protected
by
an
easement
as
part
of
the
plat.
N
We
re
respectfully
request
your
approval
of
the
application
as
submitted.
That
concludes
our
presentation.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
of
the
applicant
from
the
board
does
not
appear
so.
Is
there
anyone
in
attendance
at
council
chambers
who
like
to
provide
public
comments
or
anybody
else
by
zoom?
Do
we
have
any
calls
on
this.
Q
A
Okay,
yeah,
I
thought
that
one
went
away,
but
I
guess
it
just
shifted
around
when
when
they
joined
us
before
so
thanks
for
bringing
that
up
again,
okay,
so
there's
nobody
in
chambers,
nobody
on
the
phone
on
this
matter
or
any
clue.
Are
there
any
closing
remarks
by
staff.
A
All
right,
then,
that
being
the
case
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
on
this
matter
and
we'll
proceed
with
discussion
and
vote
by
the
board.
Does
anybody
on
the
board
have
any
questions
or
discussion?
Nor
shall
we
do
we
have
a
motion.
H
Mr
chairman,
mary
lao,
I
moved
to
approve
item
number
four
on
today's
agenda
based
on
evidence
in
the
record,
including
the
application
staff
report
and
hereby
adopt
the
finance
factors
and
conclusions
of
law
stated
in
the
staff
report
with
conditions
of
approval.
As
listed.
Q
A
F
A
A
Fld2020-05013-8696
south
gulf
view
boulevard,
the
owner
applicant,
is
696
south
gulf
view,
boulevard
llc,
the
representative
is
brett
craftsman.
The
craftsman
associates
the
property
is
located
at
northwest
corner
of
south
gulf
boulevard
and
parkway
drive
and
we're
reviewing
a
proposed
346
square
foot.
Restaurant
in
a
tourist
zoning
district.
A
On
this
matter,
is
there
anybody
on
in
chambers
or
on
staff,
or
has
not
been
sworn
in
for
this
matter
or
in
zoom.
A
J
L
L
C
Hi
this
application
is
the
the
primary
aspect
of
this
application
is
a
reduction
in
parking.
This
is
an
existing
building.
M
C
A
T
T
We're
gonna
outline
the
site
with
a
five
foot:
heavily
planted
landscape
buffer,
we're
gonna
work
with
staff
for
some
interior
plantings,
but
some
of
those
may
be
in
pots,
so
they
can
be
moved
to
provide
shade
throughout
the
day
and
other
than
that
I've
got
the
owner
here.
Who's
also
going
to
be
the
chef
at
this
restaurant.
If
you
have
any
questions,
we'd
be
happy
to
answer
them.
A
Very
good:
does
anybody
from
the
board
have
any
questions
of
the
applicant
okay
boardsmen
brought
any
written
comments
that
were
submitted
prior
to
yesterday?
Is
there
anyone
in
attendance
and
council
chambers
that
would
like
to
provide
public
comments.
A
Is
there
anybody
on
elson
zoom
for
public
comments
and
there
are
no
callers
from
this
item
from
what
I'm
being
told,
so
that
being
the
case,
are
there
any
closing
remarks
by
staff.
Q
A
E
A
F
H
A
A
It
is
fld2020-0401
at
327,
david
avenue,
the
owners
of
city
of
clearwater
applications,
creative
contractors
and
representatives,
robert
percolisi
of
gold
coast.
Consulting
location
is
on
the
east
side
of
david
avenue,
approximately
425
feet
north
of
the
intersection
with
gulf
to
bay
boulevard
and
we're
considering
a
proposal
for
a
one
thousand
fourteen
thousand
two
and
six
two
square
foot
office
project
the
proposed
floor
area
ratio,
as
stated
in
the
in
the
agenda
today,.
F
Mr
chairman,
I
I
need
to
recuse
myself
from
case
number
six,
as
my
firm
has
been
engaged
to
provide
design
services
for
this
project.
A
Okay
and
you'll
complete
the
necessary
forms
for
the
clerk.
I
will
okay,
very
good.
All
right
noted-
hopefully
I
don't
forget
at
this
time,
but
if
I
call
you
for
the
vote,
you
can
just
remind
me
that
being
said,
let's
go
ahead
and
continue
on
there's
nobody
for
party
status.
I
will
ask
this
time
that
anyone
wishing
to
speak
in
a
gen
item
in
by
zoom
or
in
council
chambers
stand
up
for
to
be
sworn
in
and
if
there's
anybody
do
we
have
anybody
on
zoom.
A
A
G
P
P
Good
afternoon,
everyone,
the
case
before
community
development
board,
is
fld
2020-04010
at
327
david
avenue.
The
site
is
located
east
of
19,
approximately
425
feet
north
of
gulf
to
bay
boulevard
on
david
avenue
and
is
sandwiched
between
david
avenue
on
west
and
elizabeth
avenue
on
east,
the
site
is
roughly
5.67
acres
and
is
zoned
as
us-19.
P
Future
land
use
is
a
us-19
regional
center.
The
site
is
roughly
5.67
acres
in
area
and
is
owned
by
city
of
clearwater
and
has
an
operational
raw
water
well
head
on
the
site.
The
applicant
creative
contractors
is
proposing
office,
use
approximately
fourteen
thousand
two
sixty
two
square
feet
in
area
19.5
feet
in
height
and
has
45
spaces
car
parking
spaces
off
street
parking
spaces
on
site.
P
The
staff
recommends
approval
approximately
20
conditions
of
approval.
Are
there
worth
mentioning?
Are
that
the
trees
need
to
be
outside
the
15
feet?
Easement
and
the
city
needs
to
have
access
each
went
to
the
raw
water
well
head
for
operation
and
maintenance.
P
M
Present
good
afternoon,
I'm
ed
armstrong,
I'm
an
attorney
with
the
law
firm
of
hillward
henderson
located
at
600
cleveland
street
suite
here
in
clearwater.
I
represent
the
applicant.
Also
here
with
me
today
is
alan
baumstein,
the
president
of
creative
contractors
and
the
other
consultants
who've
worked
on
the
project.
M
An
approval
today
will
allow
us
to
effectuate
and
finalize
the
land
swap
between
the
property
owner,
mr
creative
contractors,
property
and
the
city
property.
Subject
the
application
we're
here
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
Thank
you.
A
Anybody
have
any
questions
of
the
applicant
there
being
none.
I
don't
know
if
we
have
any
other
written
comments.
Is
there
anyone
in
attendance
and
council
chambers
like
to
provide
public
comments?
M
A
Okay,
thank
you.
That
being
the
case,
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
on
this
matter
and
proceed
with
the
board
deliberation
and
vote.
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
from
the
board
or
is
there
any.
A
H
A
E
A
Q
H
A
A
Fld2020-05011
at
1176
mandalay
point
road:
the
applicant
is
arnold,
f,
bellini
and
lauren.
Bellini
representative
is
jeff
smith
with
david
buse
design
group.
The
location
is
on
the
side
of
mandalay
point
road,
approximately
200
feet
north
of
el
dorado
avenue,
and
his
request
to
con
for
proposed
attached
dwelling
in
a
residential
info
project.
Seaward
of
the
coastal
construction
line.
A
J
Q
L
Mr
chair,
we
would
ask
the
board
that
we
would
ask
the
board,
except
alec,
andrea
as
an
expert
on
the
matter
she's
about
to
testify
too.
U
Good
afternoon
ellen
crandall
playing
development.
The
application
before
you
today
is
for
the
construction
of
a
new
detached
dwelling
requesting
a
reduction
in
setback
from
the
coastal
construction
control
line,
this
aerial
from
the
cities
gis.
It
shows
the
approximate
location
of
the
cccl
in
red
in
relation
to
the
prior
structure,
which
has
since
been
demolished.
U
U
U
The
detached
railing
has
a
proposed
height
of
30
feet,
measured
from
base
flood
elevation.
The
planning
and
development
department
is
recommending
approval
with
10
conditions
of
approval,
including
one
that
specifies
that
documentation
of
state
approval
for
any
construction
seaward
of
the
cccl
is
provided
prior
to
issuance
of
a
building
construction
permit.
F
Quick
question
go
ahead.
I
know
that
the
flood
maps
are
proposed
to
be
changed
and
adopted
sometime
next
year.
Is
there
anything
significant,
I'm
not
familiar
with
what's
exactly
happening?
Is
there
anything
significantly
different
with
the
ccc
l
in
the
proposed
map
changes,
or
is
it
roughly
in
the
same
spot.
U
D
Hi
board,
my
name
is
jeff
smith,
with
davis
views,
design,
group
s-m-I-t-h,
spelling
my
last
name,
we're
located
at
150
state
street
east
oldsmore
florida
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
think
helen
did
a
great
job
of
presenting
our
case
here.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
your
questions
like
I
said.
A
Okay,
new
there
being
none,
the
board
has
not
been
provided
any
comments
that
we
were
aware
of
that
came
in
before
five
o'clock
yesterday.
Is
there
anyone
in
attendance
in
council
chambers,
like
I
would
like
to
provide
public
comments,
anybody
by
zoom
and
looks
like
we
have
no
calls
on
this
item
either
see
it
would
have
nice
to
have
one
call
in
so
we
can
see
how
that
works,
but
anyways,
even
if
it
was
a
positive
call,
yeah
anyways.
U
A
Remarks:
okay,
I'm
going
to
assume
nothing
from
the
applicant
either
and
then
we'll
push
to
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
portion
and
continue
on
with
the
liberation
and
vote
by
the
board.
Does
anybody
have
any
discussion
that
they'd
like
to
partake
in
or
do
we
have
a
motion.
A
Motion
made
and
seconded
is
there
any
further
discussion
seeing
none,
then
let's
go
ahead
and
do
a
roll
call
vote.
Vice
chairman
asked
yes,
brian
barker,
jordan,
behar.
F
H
A
One
more
item
to
go:
let
me
get
this
stuff
off.
My
desk,
for
our
next
item
is
an
appeal
agenda.
Well
under
appeals
item
one
it's
case,
number
app,
2020-0001,
849,
bruce
avenue
the
owner
applicant
is
emily
and
david
haas.
If
I
hopefully
say
that
name
correctly,
representative
is
catherine
cole.
N
A
Okay,
we'll
do
those,
I
believe
we
do
those
one
by
one
as
they
speak
on
the
phone.
A
The
folks
on
the
phone
are
calling
in
from
public
comment
correct,
because
that's
the
only
ones,
okay,
so
we'll
we'll
address
them
and
square
them
in
as
they
speak,
but
we
have
anybody
else.
That's
present
needs
to
be
sworn
now:
yeah,
okay,
pat,
you
want
to
go
ahead.
J
Sure
would
you
raise
your
right
hand?
Please
do
you
swear
from
the
testimony
you're
about
to
give
us
the
entire
truth?
L
A
E
A
Motion
made
and
seconded
in
the
discussion
on
favor
say
I
or
yes,
I,
yes,
yes,
yes,
okay,
any
opposed,
very
good,
let's
go
ahead
and
then
continue
with
the
staff.
Q
Good
afternoon,
everyone,
the
case.
P
Before
the
community
development
board,
today
is
an
appeal,
apb
2020-0001
at
849,
bruce
avenue.
The
subject.
Property
is
located
at
the
intersection
of
bruce
avenue
and
gardenia
street
in
the
north
carolina
beach
area.
The
blue
properties
are
the
evidence
properties
which
are
submitted
by
the
applicant.
P
P
As
per
cdc
section
4-504
community
development
board
appeals
in
order
to
grant
an
appeal
the
applicant
has
to
meet
each
and
every
criteria
criteria.
One
the
decision
appeal
from
misconstrued
or
incorrectly
interpreted,
the
provisions
of
community
development
code
criteria
number
two:
the
decision
of
the
community
development
board
will
be
in
harmony
with
the
intent
and
purpose
of
community
development
code
criteria.
Number
three:
the
decision
of
the
community
development
board
will
not
be
detrimental
to
the
health,
safety
and
general
welfare.
P
As
per
the
applicant
in
its
appeal
application,
it
stated
that
the
staff
and
the
review
staff
misconstrued
or
incorrectly
interpreted
two
aspects
of
the
code,
specifically
the
terminology,
triple
frontage,
lots
and
immediate
vicinity
with
regards
to
triple
frontage
lots.
The
applicant
compared
the
corner
lot
to
corner
double
frontage
lot,
which
is
a
distinct
distinction
in
the
code.
They
are
not
comparable
and
they
are,
they
have
different
characteristics,
but
typically
corner
double
frontage.
Lots
are
called
as
triple
frontage
locks.
P
P
So,
pursuant
to
cdc
section
2-203,
the
proposed
setback
reduction
for
a
pool
needs
to
meet
the
following
flexibility
criteria
for
residential
in-field
projects,
criteria
number
six.
How
the
proposed
project
will
upgrade
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
purple
parcel
proposed
for
development.
P
For
this,
the
applicant
did
not
provide
any
evidence
to
show
how
the
proposed
pool
will
upgrade
the
immediate
vicinity
criteria
number
seven,
how
the
project
creates
a
form
and
function
which
enhances
the
community
character
of
immediate
vicinity
for
this,
the
staff
when
the
staff
removed
when
the
staff
reviewed
the
project
alters
the
character
of
immediate
vicinity
and,
furthermore,
no
evidence
was
provided
which
tells
us
that
it
enhances
the
community
character
for
criteria
number
eight.
P
Found
as
as
per
cdc,
section
3-914
a
for
level
one
applications,
the
following
criteria
needs
to
be
met
from
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
community
development
code
criteria
number
one
how
the
proposed
development
actually
will
be
in
harmony
with
the
character
of
adjacent
property,
and
the
staff
will
be
found
that
the
established
development
pattern
of
reduced
five
feet
front
setback
does
not
exist
and
no
evidence
was
provided
as
to
how
the
primary
structure
on
addison
properties
is
within
five
feet.
P
Criteria
number
five
that
how
this
proposed
development
is
consistent
with
the
community
character
of
immediate
vicinity.
The
proposed
pool
will
alter
the
character
of
the
immediate
vicinity
and,
furthermore,
no
evidence
was
provided
that
how
five
feet
front
setback
is
consistent
within
the
community.
P
The
staff
also
analyzed
the
submitted
evidence
by
the
applicant,
the
blue,
shaded
properties
are
evidence
submitted
by
the
applicant
and
the
staff
found
that
there
is
no
pattern
of
five
feet.
Reduce
setback
within
these
properties
prevailing
pattern
of
development
is
minimum
10
feet,
front
setback
from
the
primary
structure
and,
secondly,
there
has
been
no
change
in
development
since
the
last
denial
in
2003..
P
Furthermore,
when
the
staff
reviewed
the
submitted
evidence,
the
staff
found
inaccuracies
in
the
evidence
submitted
because
the
evidence
submitted
was
from
gis
maps,
for
example,
in
55
gardenia
street.
The
applicant
evidence
states
that
it
is
approximately
5.5
feet
from
north
set
from
front
setback
on
the
north
side
of
gardenia
avenue,
whereas
the
staff
research
found
that
the
setback
is
roughly
around
10
feet
from
the
property
line
which
is
based
on
the
surveys
submitted
for
building
construction
permits
and
surveys
are
typically
more
accurate
than
gis
maps.
P
Similarly,
for
849
mandalay,
the
applicant's
evidence
stated
approximately
6.8
feet:
setback
from
the
north
property
line,
whereas
the
staff
research
found
that
the
setback
is
roughly
10.75
feet
from
the
north.
P
Pursuant
to
cdc
section
1-103,
which
is
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
cdc,
it
states
that
the
purpose
of
the
code
is
to
provide
for
open
spaces
through
efficient
project
design
and
layout
between
buildings,
on
the
project
site
and
adjoining
properties
and
which
includes
public
rights
of
it.
Similarly,
cdc
section,
1-103e8
e8
establishes
zoning
districts
that
reflect
the
existing
and
desirable
characteristics
of
a
particular
area
within
the
city.
F
This
is
jordan
baer
one
quick
question:
I
noticed
it
looks
like
there's,
there's
multiple
references
to
the
setbacks
to
pool
and
code
related
to
pool
and
then
there's
also
discussion
of
setbacks
in
and
relationship
to
primary
structure.
Yes,
the
pool
is
13
inches
up,
so
I
believe
it's
being
considered
primary
structure
and
not
a
pool,
yes
that
correct.
Yes,
thank
you.
H
I'll
learn
this
eventually.
My
question
is
of
currently
on
the
gardenia
side
of
the
house,
where
the
pool
is
going
to
be
in
the
outer
edge
by
the
sidewalk.
There
is
a
decorative
metal
fence
and
a
tall
hedge.
If
I
correctly
understand
the
landscape
sketch
that's
expected
to
remain
in
place,
correct.
P
Actually,
the
existing
conditions
right
now.
I
think
it's
in
the
right
of
way.
So
I
think
the
property
line
is
roughly
10
to
15
feet
from
that
line,
but
as
per
their
sketch,
yes,
it
will
be
there
as
a
part
of
the
design.
In
addition,
there
will
be
site
visibility,
triangle
requirement
for
20
feet
by
20
feet
at
the
intersection
of
garden
and
brews
and
where
their
driveway
for
the
garage
actually
meets.
The
gardenia
street.
P
Pools
less
than
12
inches
are
considered
as
accessory
structures
and
access
restructures
are
not
allowed,
are
not
permitted
between
the
right
of
way
and
the
primary
structure,
so
they
need
to
be
at
the
rear
of
the
primary
structure,
but
since
they
are
requesting
your
flexibility,
sorry,
since
they
are
giving
this
proposal
for
a
pool
which
is
13
inches,
which
is
higher
than
12
inches,
it
will
be
a
part
of
primary
structure.
G
U
If
a
pool
and
deck
is
12,
inches
or
less,
it
is
an
accessory
structure
which
is
not
permitted
between
the
house
and
a
public
right-of-way.
If
it
is
greater
than
12
inches,
it
will
be
considered
a
primary
structure.
So
the
basis
of
the
fls
is
that
it's
13
inches
in
height.
Therefore,
it
is
a
primary.
G
U
U
U
G
U
U
U
U
G
Oh
okay,
just
so
I'll
ask
just
do
it
for
one
more
where
I
can
make
myself,
I
I
I
was
involved
in
improving
swimming
pools
for
many
years
with
the
health
department.
So
I
and
I
know,
there's
different
designs
and
essentially
sometimes
the
design
is
such
what
causes
it
to
be
12
inches
high.
What
if
the
rose
raised
the
whole
yard
by
12
inches
and
then
made
it
flat
or
some
engineering
around
it,
so
it
didn't
meet
that
13
inches
instead
of
11
inches.
G
First
of
all,
that's
one
issue,
and
the
second
is:
if,
when
a
corner
house,
you
know
it
you
it's
going
to
be
almost
like
a
side
of
a
yard.
Instead
of
a
corner
house,
because
they're
getting
zinged
because
they're
on
the
corner,
they
can't
do
much
with
the
property,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
balance
it
down.
So
I
can
understand.
K
It
has
to
be
behind
the
front
building
line
of
the
house
when
this
house
was
originally
constructed
back
in
2003
or
four
and
got
flexibility
for
the
front
setback
along
gardenia
to
be
reduced
down
to
15
feet
that
application
included
a
pool
in
this
general
location
as
well,
which
was
not
approved
as
part
of
that
application
because
of
the
reduction
and
setback.
So
now
years
later
a
different
owner
is
is
coming
forward.
Wanting
a
pool
in
this
location
where
we
found
there
was
not
an
established
pattern
within
this.
K
The
immediate
vicinity
of
this
property
to
support
that
reduction,
because
they're
proposing
a
pool,
that's
13
inches.
We
have
to
treat
it
as
if
it
were
part
of
the
house-
and
I
think
that's
the
difference.
If
we
looked
at
it
as
a
flat
pool
at
grade
12,
inches
or
less,
it
would
have
to
be
behind
that
front
building
line,
and
this
house
was
designed
and
constructed
with
no
space
for
a
pool.
K
G
A
Do
you
have
any
other
questions
for
anyone's
staff?
Okay,
there
being
none
before
ms
call
speaks.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out.
I
didn't
go
through
the
procedures
for
hearing,
even
though
we
switched
from
level
two
to
an
appeal,
because
the
procedures
are
the
same,
except
for
there's
no
party
status
and
appeal.
So
just
so,
the
record's
clear
the
procedures
are
the
same
as
our
level
two
cases
and
there
was
nobody
asking
for
party
status
on
any
of
the
matters
anyway.
So
everything's
the
same,
so
I
didn't
go
through
that
process.
A
Now
I
just
want
to
make
sure
the
record
was
clear:
miss
cole.
You
have
the
floor.
O
O
I'm
also
here
with
my
colleague
jamie
meyer,
from
our
law
firm,
who
has
been
instrumental
in
preparing
both
the
application,
doing
the
research
on
the
evidence
and
the
appeal.
I
think
that
mr
flannery
got
right
to
the
point.
This
is
because
it's
a
corner
lot.
If
this
property
were
not
on
the
corner,
we
would
not
be
here
before
you.
O
A
pool
could
have
been
constructed
at
grade
without
any
relief
and,
as
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
the
house
was
already
approved,
with
five
foot
side
setbacks,
a
raised
pool
could
have
arguably
been
approved
at
a
five-foot
setback.
So
the
only
basis
for
denial
that
the
city
articulated
in
its
letter
of
denial
is
because
this
is
a
corner
lot,
and
so
that
is
the
reason
we're
here
today.
O
Just
as
a
matter
of
business,
I
would
like
to
incorporate
the
record,
including
the
response
to
comments
that
the
applicant
made
into
the
asella
system.
I
don't
know
if
you
all
receive
that
full
record
when
you
do.
I
also
want
to
be
sure
we
provided
a
book
for
each
of
you
that
incorporates
the
evidence
and
a
copy
of
our
appeal
application
that
you
all
have
that.
So,
mr
cherry
just
doesn't
matter
point
of
business
that
there's
no
objection
wanted
to
confirm
those
things
were
incorporated
into
the
record.
O
I
think
that
we
do
have
a
powerpoint,
and
so
I
think
miss
crandall
can
facilitate
that
for
us
as
we
go
through
and
going
to
the
point
of
the
appeal,
I'm
kind
of
straddling
a
line
here
because
to
mr
flannery's
point,
I'd
like
to
go
through
some
of
the
original
application
details
and
be
sure
that
you
understand
what
the
request
was,
but
also
want
to
be
cognizant,
that
we
are
appealing
and
want
to
be
sure
that
we
convey
to
you
how
the
staff
misconstrued
and
misapplied
the
code
and
failed
basis
decision
on
competent,
substantial
evidence.
O
If
you
go
to
slide
two
we'd
like
to
step
back
and
explain
what
this
application
is,
it's
the
addition
of
a
pool
and
they've
desired
to
have
a
pool
ever
since
2013.,
while
the
staff,
opined
that
upon
construction
of
the
house,
a
pool
was
denied,
that's
not
in
fact,
actually
correct.
The
building
permit
included
reference
to
a
pool,
but
after
discussion,
the
builder
removed
that
request
understanding
that
it
at
the
time
it
needed
to
be
a
principal
structure
because
of
the
city's
limitations
of
accessory
structures
in
a
front
setback.
O
Gardenia
street
is
buffered
by
landscaping,
as
you
can
see
in
the
landscape
plan.
There's
continued
to
be
landscaping
proposed,
there's
some
reorganization
of
that
landscaping
to
provide
for
site
visibility
triangles
that
don't
currently
exist.
While
it
is
considered
a
frontage,
it's
a
secondary
and
less
traffic
street
than
bruce
avenue
and
in
fact
the
application
removes
the
primary
driveway
from
bruce
and
moves
it
on
to
gardenia,
which
is
a
preferred
access
for
secondary
accesses
next
slide.
Please.
O
The
applica
it's
common
throughout
the
clearwater
beach
to
have
a
pool
on
a
small
lot,
as
you
can
see
from
the
aerials
that
were
provided
in
the
application
and
the
copy
of
the
appeal,
but
I
think
most
importantly,
is
that
in
the
application
and
together
with
the
response
to
comment,
the
houses
did
provide
competent,
substantial
evidence
of
the
applicability
with
the
cdc
criteria.
O
This
is
a
photo
of
the
home
that
was
built
and
showing
the
bruce
avenue
frontage,
where
these
pavers
would
be
removed
and
relocated
to
the
side,
shows
the
intersection
of
bruce
and
gardenia
and
shows
the
existing
hedge.
Where
you
can
see
behind
the
hedge
is
where
the
pool
would
be
constructed.
You
can
see
the
sidewalk
along
gardenia,
ironically,
because
this
is
the
newest
house
on
this
intersection.
The
haza's
home
is
the
only
one
with
a
sidewalk
along
gardenia
street.
O
Next
slide,
here's
an
ariel
and
you
can
see
the
green
sole
sidewalk
there
and
you
can
see
where
the
pool
would
be
located
on
the
side
of
the
home
there
next
slide.
O
This
is
a
proposed
site
plan
that
was
submitted
with
the
application
showing
where
the
pool
location
is,
and
I
believe,
miss
clayton
said
that
there
was
15
feet
set
back
on
gardenia,
but,
as
you
can
see
from
this
survey
in
the
in
the
site
plan,
it's
actually
20
feet
five
feet
on
the
two
sides.
So
this
is
a
good
example
of
showing
the
predicament
that
is
in
when
you
have
a
corner
lot.
O
O
They,
the
applicant,
requested
a
20-foot
setback
along
gardenia
and
there
are
five
foot
setbacks
on
both
sides,
so
the
home
is
situated
in
the
back
corner,
eliminating
the
opportunity
to
put
any
type
of
accessory
or
other
recreational
space,
except
for
in
this
gardenia
area.
If
you
can
go
back
one
slide,
please
you
can
see
that
behind
the
shrubs.
Well,
you
can't
really
see
it
from
here.
O
O
Please
the
basis
of
appeal
in
issuing
the
development
order.
The
planning
department
did
misconstrue
and
misinterpret
the
cdc
and
failed
to
base
its
decision
on
competent
substance.
Substantial
evidence,
as
you
all
know-
and
you
hear
me
say
often-
that
if
the
applicant
provides
competent,
substantial
evidence,
there
has
to
be
some
sort
of
alternative
evidence
or
it
should
be
approved.
O
If
we
move
forward
please
to
the
next
slide,
we
wanted
to
articulate
why
we
believe
that
and
why
we
believe
you
should
determine
that
the
staff
misconstrued
the
code.
I
think
the
first
thing
is
the
erroneous
reliance
on
prior
applications
for
same
and
other
properties.
It's
always
a
a
difficult
balance
because
on
one
hand
the
code
requires
compatibility,
but
on
the
other
hand,
the
law
requires
each
application
to
stand
on
its
own
and
obviously,
if
in
the
applicant,
can't
present
specific
examples
of
exact
facts
if
it's
standing
on
its
own.
O
But
yet
the
intention
is
to
look
holistically
at
the
character
of
the
community
and
what
the
community
may
present.
Furthermore,
the
code
specifically
allows
an
applicant
to
present
the
exact
same
request
over
and
over
again
every
year
and
asks
that
the
board
look
at
each
one
independently,
so
the
reliance
on
prior
applications
is
misconstrued.
O
Further.
The
distinction
of
the
triple
front
lot
lot
versus
a
double
front
line.
The
staff
argues
in
the
staff
report
that
a
three
frontage
corner
lot
is
more
commonly
known
as
a
triple
frontage
and
therefore
has
different
benefits
than
a
corner
lot.
And
while
the
code
talks
about
double
frontages
and
triple
frontages
and
corner
lots,
the
code
doesn't
make
any
distinction
as
to
allowing
certain
improvements
on
a
triple
lot
versus
a
double
lot.
O
It
simply
says
that
these
are
the
definitions
and
if
there
is
a
corner
lot,
there
are
these
two
frontages
that
are
known
it.
The
code
itself
does
not
require
these
definitions
to
be
so
rigid.
It's
written
a
way
that
reflects
the
notion
of
community
character
and
a
pattern
of
development,
not
a
plan
development.
As
we
all
know,
north
clearwater
beach
is
an
eclectic
and
unique
neighborhood.
There
are
many
side
streets
that
have
development
on
them.
O
They
are
small
lots
with
rather
large
homes
that
have
significant
value
and
homes,
with
significant
value
demand,
additional
amenities
such
as
pools,
fire
pits,
porches
and
that's
what
the
hazes
are
looking
for.
I
think
the
biggest
thing
that
we
take
offense
to
is
the
definition
of
immediate
vicinity
and
vinod
spoke
in
his
staff
report
of
the
common
definition
of
immediate
vicinity
being
meaning
specifically
nearby
and
almost
adjacent.
O
However,
the
code
reaches
out
and
has
another
criteria
that
talks
about
adjacent
property.
Why
would
the
code
use
in
two
criteria
the
words
immediate
vicinity
and
in
one
criteria,
the
word
adjacent
if
they
were
intended
to
mean
the
same
thing?
That
simply
can't
be
the
case
in
in
your
package
on
exhibit
d
is
a
copy
of
the
plot,
and
I
think
we
all
know,
as
a
resident
of
north
clearwater
beach
for
10
years
of
my
adult
life
as
well.
North
clearwater
beach
is
its
own
community.
We
did
not
reach
into
carlawell
for
examples.
O
O
Oh,
I'm
sorry,
there's
not
a
timer
up
here.
Oh
sorry,
I'm
used
to
watching
here.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
have
a
couple
more
minutes
and
I
also
have
the
homeowner
who
would
like
to
speak.
Two
minutes
like
we
could.
If
we
could
have
no
more
than
four
more
minutes.
A
A
Yeah,
I
I
didn't
know
where
the
time
was
either
to
know
for
certain.
I
just
saw
a
message
that
came
up
a
few
moments
ago,
so
I'll
give
four
minutes,
but
also
we'll
give
staff
additional
time
because
of
that,
since
they
they
didn't,
have
the
opportunity.
O
Moving
to
the
next
slide.
The
original
application
should
have
been
approved
originally
because
it
was
specifically
provided
for
the
primary
structure
in
the
front
yard.
Consistent
with
the
community,
the
single
family
homes,
it
upgrades
the
immediate
vicinity,
the
staff
states
that
there
was
no
specific
evidence
of
upgrades
of
vicinity,
but
if
every
pool
application
required
an
appraisal
to
come
in,
that
would
create
a
huge
burden
on
both
the
homeowners
and
the
staff.
When
it's
commonly
known
the
pools
increase
the
value
of
the
home.
O
With
that,
I
would
like
to
invite
mr
hawes
up,
so
he
can
speak
and
then
I
will
briefly
conclude.
Thank
you.
V
Hi
good
afternoon,
mr
chair
members
of
the
development
board,
thanks.
Thank
you
for
your
time
today.
My
name
is
david
haas
h-a-a-s-e
and
my
wife.
Emily
we've
been
proud
homeowners
of
849
bruce
now
for
seven
years,
and
we
have
two
kids
locally
that
go
to
st
st
cecilia's
school,
and
I
I
wanted
to
start
with
a
thank
you.
This
is
a
you
can
see
a
complicated
issue
and
but
obviously
we
feel
very
confident
that
we've
come
to
a
good
conclusion,
and
hopefully
you
feel
the
same.
V
We've
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
this
and
a
lot
of
effort,
a
lot
of
money.
It's
been
an
ongoing
process
here
now,
for
a
few
years,
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
with
the
city
and
with
the
planners
we've
also
connected
with.
I.
I
feel
that
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
community
over
50
households,
we've
talked
to
personally
you'll,
see
it
in
our
submittal.
V
We've
spent
a
lot
of
time
getting
signatures
and
talking
to
them
about
the
investment
that
we
want
to
make
in
our
property.
V
In
addition
to
that,
we've
also-
and
you
will
hear
from
the
community-
I
believe
we
have
some
community
members
on
some
experts
in
their
field.
I
view
them
as
experts
both
in
real
estate
from
the
clearwater
beach
association,
as
well
as
from
another
realtor
and
property
manager
in
the
local
area,
all
in
support
of
this
endeavor.
So
I
I
can
only
say
thank
you
for
reviewing
our
case
and
looking
at
it
with
an
open
mind.
Obviously
we
feel
very
confident
in
our
legal
position
here
and
want
to
say
thank
you
for
your
time.
O
O
The
evidence
we
provided
in
the
original
application,
with
examples
of
pools
in
the
north,
carolina
beach
area
and
and
more
importantly,
examples
of
primary
structures
with
reduced
setbacks,
and
that's
really
what
this
is
about,
and
so,
in
summary,
it
is
within
the
community
character.
The
original
application
is
not
contrary
to
the
code.
It
meets
the
criteria
and
the
department
had
no
legitimate
reasons
for
denial
and
misconstrued
the
code
when
doing
so,
and
with
that,
we
appreciate
it
and
are
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
thank
you.
H
All
right,
if
I'm
understand
this
is
related
to
the
question
I
asked
staff
earlier.
If
the
fence
and
the
hedge
along
gardenia
avenue
remain
in
place.
If
this
project
is
installed
to
my
way
of
thinking,
you
can't
really
see
what's
behind
the
hedge,
so
that
the
only
real
change
in
the
appearance
of
the
property
would
be
the
removal
of
the
bruce
avenue,
pavers
and
installation
of
landscaping.
Is
that
correct?
H
Yes,
all
right,
I
I
have
a
question
just
kind
of
want
you
to
expand
a
little
on
your
interpretation
of
the
snyder
case
that
you
cited
in
your
materials.
H
If
I
recall
that
case
was
a
foreign
supreme
court
decision
involving
the
denial
of
a
rezoning
application
for
a
half
acre
parcel
of
land,
it
worked
its
way
up
through
the
court
system
got
to
the
florida
supreme
court
and
ultimately,
the
court
decided
that
the
denial
of
the
rezoning
application
was
within
the
county's
purview
and
that
it
should
be
upheld
and
the
gist
that
I
get
from
that
decision
and
I
do
think
it's
applicable
to
a
development
application,
like
this
case,
not
just
a
rezoning
case.
H
O
Sure
I
think
that
the
in
my
opinion
and
I'll
defer
to
mr
fueno
and
mr
daniel
but
snyder
defines
quasi-judicial
hearings
and
how
they
work,
and
you
hear
me
regularly
stand
before
you
and
say
that
the
applicant
has
presented
competent,
substantial
evidence
and
if
there
is
no
contrary
confidence,
substantial
evidence
that
the
application
should
be
approved
and
that's
the
situation
we
have
here
is
the
applicant
presented,
confident
substantial
evidence
that
it
meets
each
of
the
criteria.
O
The
city's
response
in
its
denial
letter
was
not
that
there
was
alternative
evidence
or
competing
evidence
that
they
thought
they
simply
stated
that
they
disagreed
or
ignored
the
applicant's
evidence
and
that's
not
sufficient
under
the
law.
If
there
is
evidence
presented
in
order
to
deny
there
needs
to
be
alternative
evidence
to
be
considered
to
support
the
denial
you
can't
have
you
can't
just
ignore
the
evidence
that
was
presented.
H
I
guess
to
put
a
little
finer
point
on
it
if
the
materials
provided
by
staff
and
the
expert
testimony
at
the
hearing
today
indicates
that
there
have
been
no
other
five
foot
setback
approvals
in
this
kind
of
area
approved,
regardless
of
whether
you're
looking
at
the
four
houses
next
to
this
house
or
the
entire
north
beach
area
that
you
looked
at,
it
seems
to
me
if
that
has
been
consistently
applied.
Isn't
that
competent,
substantial
evidence
that
the
board
can
consider.
O
Respectfully,
not
not
necessarily,
this
is
an
appeal,
and
so
it's
an
appeal
based
on
the
denial
letter
in
the
development
order
and
in
the
development
order.
The
staff
stated
that
it
simply
didn't
meet
the
criteria
in
the
code
and
wasn't
compatible.
They
didn't
provide
any
evidence
or
findings
of
fact
in
that
denial
as
to
why
it
didn't
it
didn't
state
that
it
disagreed
with
the
applicants
evidence
it
didn't
state
that
the
applicant's
evidence
was
incorrect.
O
O
I
myself
have
been
involved
in
several
applications
on
clearwater
beach,
where
we've
had
garages
that
are
zero
foot,
front
setbacks,
and
so
I
know
for
a
fact:
there
are
on
north
clearwater
beach,
several
homes
that
have
primary
structures
that
are
located
within
five
to
ten
feet
of
the
front
setback.
So
the
appeal,
the
basis
of
appeal,
is
the
letter
of
denial
and
the
fact
that
the
city
did
not
provide
any
evidence
in
its
denial.
That
was
contrary
to
the
evidence
provided
in
the
application.
It
simply
disagreed
with
the
applicant's
evidence.
H
I
might,
at
some
appropriate
point,
ask
mr
daniel
to
comment
on
whether,
because
the
appellate
process
in
the
code
requires
us
to
consider
it
to
conduct
a
quasi-judicial
hearing
such
as
we're
doing,
if
that
affects
what
the
board's
allowed
to
consider
in
deciding
what
is
the
record
on
appeal?
Thank
you.
Mm-Hmm.
E
Yes,
I
just
had
a
question
on
the
landscape
and
this
idea
of
enhancing
the
community
character.
There
are
some
nice
palm
trees,
some
royal
palms
on
the
property
and
along
the
side
of
the
home
there,
which
again
is
sort
of
the
front
of
the
home.
It
looks
like
that
that
would
be
removed
and
the
pool
would
be
installed.
I
do
see
that,
based
on
the
site
plan,
I'm
looking
at
there's
some
adonitive
palms.
That
would
be
repurposed,
but
I'm
thinking
a
lot
of
that
landscape
would
be
removed,
perhaps
relocated.
E
But
I
don't
see
that
the
other
thing
I
do
notice
with
the
existing
condition
is
we
do
have
a
tall
hedge
that
goes
around
the
properties,
so
that
sort
of
screens
a
yard.
I
see,
there's
a
proposed
hedge,
however,
the
proposed
hedge
would
hat
would
be
30
inches
tall,
so
in
other
words,
we
would
see
from
the
street
a
pool
and
that
sort
of
gets
to
my
concern
about
enhancing
the
community
character
and
patterns
we're
seeing
elsewhere.
E
I
can't
think
of
any
other
home
where
I
see
a
pool
from
the
street
and
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
screen
that
unless
the
pool
is
somehow
moved
in
this
site
plan
further
down
and
we
can
screen
around
that,
but
because
of
the
site
triangles,
I
don't
think
that
could
be
permitted.
But
perhaps
you
could
comment
on
that.
O
Certainly
so
the
indication
that
the
hedges
would
be
trimmed
and
maintained
to
less
than
30
inches
is
only
within
the
site
triangle
and
that's
a
requirement
of
the
city
code.
Arguably,
they
should
already
be
trimmed
and
maintained
at
30
inches,
but
have
grown
higher
than
that
as
many
residential
homes
have
higher
hedges.
O
O
As
you
are
probably
aware,
pools
require
screening
for
safety
purposes
consistent
with
the
building
code,
and
so
there
needs
to
be
some
level
of
fencing
or
screening
48
inches.
There's
not
a
specific
fence
plan
shown
or
gate
plan
shown
on
this,
because
it
honestly
depends
on
what
type
of
landscaping
and
and
safety
measures
the
homeowner
desires
to
do
once
the
pool
would
be
installed.
So
does
that
answer
your
question.
E
O
I
don't
believe
it
would
if
it's
a
three,
if
the
hedges
are
taller
than
three
feet
now
and
there
would
be
a
requirement
to
be
at
least
a
48
inch
barrier
next
to
the
pool.
So
if
it's
one
foot
up
and
three
feet,
if
I'm
five
feet
tall,
I'm
looking
at
a
hedge,
I'm,
not
necessarily
seeing
the
pool,
I
think
if
you
go
back
to
our
powerpoint
or
even
the
city's
powerpoint,
you
see
a
a
photo
straight
facing
straight
on
and
you
can
can't
see
even
the
stairs
that
are
adjacent
to
the
home.
O
Possible
ella
there
was
a
copy
of
the
site
plan
in
my
powerpoint.
O
So
you
can
see
the
site
triangle
requirement
that
those
hedges
would
have.
The
hedges
would
have
to
be
30
inches
in
that
triangle
area.
E
Yes,
and
that
that's
my
concern
is
that
I
would
be
able
to
see
that
pool
from
the
street
30
if
I'm
walking
on
the
sidewalk
or
driving
in
my
car,
the
30
inches
would
not
screen
the
pool.
I'd
be
able
to
see
that
pool
area.
O
Perhaps
you
would
see
the
pool
area
no
different
than
you
would
see
if
the
pool
were
located
where
it
says
haas
residence,
849,
bruce
avenue
in
the
rear
yard,
and
you
were
walking
down
the
street
or
driving
down
the
street.
I
I
mean,
perhaps
you
may
perhaps
you
wouldn't,
depending
on
on
the
other
screening
and
the
area
that
you
come
through.
So
hey,
okay,.
F
Katie,
I
noticed
there
was
a
miss
the
the
report
cites
a
misunderstanding
of
the
nature
of
corner
lots
and,
and
everybody's
touched
on
it
with
triple
frontage,
double
frontage
corner
lots.
Can
you
explain
a
little
further
on
on
the
city's
misunderstanding
of
corn
a
lot.
O
Certainly
I
mean
the
city
took
issue
with
the
fact
that
there
were
many
pool
examples
that
were
shown
in
the
applicant's
original
application
and
in
the
peel
that
they
said,
aren't
aren't
the
same
because
they
were
on
triple
frontage.
Lots
instead
of
corner
lots,
I
think
from
a
practical
matter
and
a
homeowner's
standpoint.
O
If
you
have
to
treat
two
yards
or
three
yards
as
a
front
yard
setback,
it's
somewhat
irrelevant,
you're
still
having
to
use
a
front
yard,
as
defined
in
the
code
as
your
primary
recreation
area.
And
so
we
don't
feel
that
the
distinction
between
a
triple
frontage
lot
versus
a
corner.
Frontage
lot
is
defined
in
the
code.
While
it
discusses
corner
lots
and
it
defines
what
a
double
frontage
lot
is.
That
distinction
is
irrelevant
because
the
definitions
of
front
yard
setbacks,
don't
change.
G
Chris
raised
a
really
interesting
point
here,
because
yeah
with
the
side
triangle,
I
the
one
in
the
front,
doesn't
bother
me,
but
the
one
on
the
side
does
and
if
there's
a
four
foot
high,
it
has
to
be
a
four
foot,
high
expense
for
liability
concerns.
G
Then
there
will
be
something
even
there.
That's
four
foot
high,
that's
going
to
block
the
view
or
could
block
the
view,
and
I
I'm
trying
to
get
around
that.
How
that's
going
to
work
that
you
don't
have
any.
You
have
a
fence:
that's
four
foot
high,
but
and
now
you're
gonna.
What
I
liked
about
it
was
the
high
fences.
You
know
that
if
you're
swimming
in
your
pool,
you
have
some
privacy,
but
you
knocked
that
down
with
a
four
foot
fence
and
which
is
higher
than
than
you
can
see
through.
G
I
mean
I'm
having
trouble
how
this
fence
is
going
to
work
on
next
to
the
driveway
and
where
the
I
saw,
the
basketball
stuff
there,
which
is
fine
anyway.
Can
you
address
how
it's
going
to
be
high
enough
to
be
legal
to
get
in
there
to
keep
to
for
liability
for
foot,
but
still
it
can
be
seen
through
and
people
can't
see
it
through
it?
I
just
I'm
having
trouble
with
that
one.
O
Certainly,
I
think,
there's
a
couple
of
things.
First
of
all,
if
you
see
on
the
aerial,
the
area
to
the
east
of
the
existing
driveway
is
largely
landscaped
and
has
tall
palms
and
is
very
full.
O
So
if
you're
coming
from
the
east
to
the
west
on
gardenia
street,
I
think
most
of
the
your
view
of
any
of
this
portion
of
the
area
of
the
pool
wouldn't
be
visible
until
you're,
literally
right
in
front
of
it,
because
the
you're
traveling
west,
until
you
got
to
the
existing
driveway,
you
wouldn't
have
any
visibility
there
because
of
the
shrubs
on
the
eastern
eastern
side
of
the
property.
O
With
respect
to
the
48
inches.
As
you
know,
the
building
code
has
a
variety
of
ways
that
you
can
meet,
that
it
doesn't
have
to
be
a
solid
fence
if
it
was
something.
So
it
would
have
to
be
something
that
meets
the
site.
Visibility
triangle,
as
well
as
the
building
code
and
the
houses
in
the
pool
contractor,
haven't
defined
that
specifically,
but
it
would
have
to
marry
those
two
things.
O
I
don't
think
that
anywhere
in
the
code,
it
requires
structures
to
be
not
visible
from
the
street
and
in
fact,
if
you
look
at
the
aerials
of
all
of
the
examples
that
were
provided,
you
can
look
that
there
are
several
pools
that
are
visibles
from
from
the
street
and
I
don't
know
that
that's
a
detriment
or
inconsistent
with
the
community
character.
This
is
a
community
on
north
clearwater
beach,
where
you
have
people
sitting
in
lawn
chairs,
taking
their
chairs
to
the
beach
walking
a
couple
blocks,
they're
sitting
in
their
driveways
with
their
neighbors.
O
It's
a
community
feel
and
a
very
social
atmosphere
and
having
even
a
corner
of
the
pool
visible,
is
not
a
detriment.
The
same
way
the
patio
and
fire
pit
that
would
not
require
your
approval
on
this
side
of
the
house
would
would
not
be
a
detriment.
So
it's,
I
guess
it's
all
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder.
But
that's
not
one
of
the
correct
visibility
from
the
street
is
not
one
of
the
criteria
of
the
code.
B
Katie
just
trying
to
I'm
looking
at
the
plan
here
on
the
screen
here.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
looking
at
correctly
the
north
setback
or
the
north
yeah,
the
north
building
setback
and
east
building
setback.
Am
I
reading
that
right
is
five
feet.
B
Do
you
want
to
have
any
I'm
looking
at?
I'm
sorry,
I'm
looking
at
some
of
the
photos
that
were
provided
in
the
report
and
everything
else
and
on
some
of
these
structures,
principal
structures,
whether
they're
garages
or
whatever
any
of
those
have
five
foot
setbacks.
I
mean.
Obviously,
if
this
was
an
interior
lot.
We
probably
aren't
sitting
here
today
correct.
O
If
this
were
an
interior
lot,
we
certainly
wouldn't
be
sitting
here
today.
If,
in
the
powerpoint
you
go
to
the
to
the
page,
that
is
examples
of
other
principal
structures
in
the
vicinity
and,
as
we
stated
in
the
application
and
in
the
appeal,
this
was
done
off
of
measuring
on
google
maps
and
gis.
So
this
was
not
done
on
surveys,
but
if
you
flip
it's
about
there,
you
go
that
one.
O
If
you
go
back
one
again
ella
there
you
go
so
37.
Bohemian
circle
is
zero
feet.
907
lantana
is
approximately
15.
830,
based
on
approximately
13.
928
is
approximately
12
feet.
10.50
bay
esplanade
is
approximately
six
feet.
O
Those
are
pools
on
the
next
page
are
a
variety
of
other
structures
that
range
from
three
and
a
half
to
four
feet
at
847
el
dorado
up
to
15
to
18
feet
at
840
bay
esplanade.
So
these.
B
B
O
Yes-
and
this
was
one
of
the
examples
that
honestly,
we
had
the
most
disagreement
with
staff
as
to
why
the
staff
didn't
consider
this
to
be
an
example
of
a
of
a
similar,
similar
property.
I
mean
the
fact
that
this
has
well.
The
staff
considers
this
three
frontages,
even
though
it's
a
pointy
corner
like
that,
I
think,
with
all
intents
and
purposes,
it's
a
pool,
that's
on
a
right
of
way.
In
fact,
it's
on
two
rights
of
ways
visible
from
both,
so
it
certainly
points
to
the
same
type
of
of
requests.
B
O
Certainly-
and
you
know
not
not
to
make
this
more
confusing
than
it
already
is,
with
the
accessory
structure
versus
principle
structure,
but
miss
crandall
explained
that
accessory
structures
have
to
be
set
behind
a
principal
structure
to
be
acceptable
in
a
front
setback
and,
honestly,
that's
a
four
mover
function
distinction
when
it
comes
to
these
provisions
of
the
code.
If
you
look
on
your
screen
at
928
bay
esplanade,
it's
very
likely
that
that
was
approved
as
an
accessory
structure,
because
the
edge
of
the
pool
is
behind
that
taller
building.
O
That's
on
the
north
side
of
that
parcel,
but
from
a
practical
standpoint
that
doesn't
look
any
different
than
what's
being
proposed
today,
just
because
it's
set
a
few
feet
back
from
the
front
leading
edge
of
that
structure
and
that's
one
of
the
frustrations
at
907
lantana.
O
E
This
is
a
question.
Could
I
are
you
done
john
I'd
like
to
comment
on
that
yeah
just
to
follow
up
on
that
katie,
I'm
wondering
if
the
owner
is
open
to
possibly
moving
the
pool,
and
I
just
want
to
elaborate
on
my
concern-
is
again
that
sort
of
the
fit
if
it
fits
with
the
character
and
what
I'm
seeing
elsewhere.
Some
of
these
other
aerials
I'm
looking
at,
we
have
screening
and
fence,
so
it
can
obstruct
the
pool
now
in
the
side
plane
I'm
looking
at.
E
E
So
my
concern
is
that
in
our
in
this
site
plan
we
have
before
us,
we
have
some
site
triangles
that
are
preventing
the
pool
from
being
completely
obstructed
in
the
current
layout.
So
we
have
the
pool
adjacent
to
the
frontage
in
the
front
yard
of
the
of
the
site.
So
these
other
examples
we're
looking
at.
We
have
a
different
scenario
in
that
they
have
they're
able
to
obstruct
the
pool
with
surrounding
it
by
fence
or
landscape
completely,
and
I'm
just
wondering
with
the
site
with
this
case
and
this
site
plan.
I
Yeah
under
4-504-b
you
have
the
ability
to
modify
the
decision
of
the
planning
department.
So
you
could
you
could
do
that.
Ideally,
you'd
have
the
applicant's
consent
to
do
that,
but
you
don't
require
it
either
under
your
code.
So
if
you,
if
you
did
that,
then
the
applicant
would
be
placed
in
the
position
of
choosing
to
move
forward
on
under
the
modified
conditions
or
not
moving
forward.
E
O
A
Just
so
it's
clear
normally
when
you
have
cross-examination
or
closing
remarks,
you're
going
over
things
that
have
already
been
put
into
the
record
and
testimony,
but
by
giving
the
city
going
back,
giving
this
any
additional
time,
I'm
actually
allowing
them
to
put
in
additional
commentary
because
they
have
well.
I
counted
on
my
clock
when
it
was
2
30
when
I
was
told
that
they
were
going
over
and
they
were
done
at
2
34.
So
I
was
going
to
give
the
city
an
additional
four
minutes
of
time.
A
If
the
city
would
like
to
present
some
more
then
I'll,
give
this
city
the
opportunity
now
or
we'll
continue
on
to
the
public
hearings.
The
public
comment.
U
Thank
you.
I
had
to
figure
out
how
to
unmute,
while
presenting
so
I'd
like
to
recap.
Thank
you
for
the
additional
time.
I
think
fundamentally
the
question
before
you
as
an
appeal
is:
did
we
apply
the
code?
Not
do
we
like
the
code?
Is
the
code
convenient?
Is
it
hard
on
corner
logs?
Do
we
wish
there
were
primary
and
secondary
footages?
U
U
U
So,
oh
it's.
Actually
it's
actually
off
my
screen,
but
down
here
is
the
bohemia
circle
triple
frontage
property.
We
did
not
review
because
it's
outside
of
the
immediate
vicinity.
Further
I've
reviewed
that
property
based
on
other
general
questions.
It
appears
that
pool
was
permitted
pre.
The
current
development
code,
which
was
in
1999
excuse
me,
was
adopted
in
1999.
U
We
did
review
the
evidence.
We
reserved
our
detailed
analysis
for
the
properties
that
were
closest
to
the
subject
property.
Subject:
property
stone
here
shown
here
with
a
star.
These
are
the
ones
that
are
really
closest,
so,
like
staff
said
before
example,
is
55
gardenia,
the
applicant's
evidence
says
approximately
5.5
based
on
aerial
and
gis.
U
When
staff
did
our
research,
we
found
a
site
plan
that
shows
it's
10
foot.
We
do
not
have
a
pattern
of
a
5
foot
front
setback.
Another
example
was
849
mandalay
again,
they
said
approximately.
You
know
working
with
the
evidence
that
they
they
could
obtain.
6.8.
We
found
per
a
site
plan
that
it's
10.75.
U
U
There
is
multiple
criteria
that
reference,
the
immediate
vicinity,
which
is
where
we
review
the
evidence
against
the
immediate
vicinity
nearest
to
the
subject:
property,
which
is
different
than
a
budding
there's
only
two
abundant
properties
to
the
north
and
to
the
east.
We
did
differentiate
between
those
two
criteria.
U
U
A
Thanks,
sorry
about
that,
so
I
was
starting
to
say
we're
going
to
proceed
now
with
the
public
hearing
portion
of
this.
I
don't
see
any
of
the
questions
or
comments
from
staff
from
for
the
staff,
so
is
there
anyone
in
chambers
that
would
like
to
provide
public
comments
on
this
particular
matter?
Mr.
I
Chairman
before
you
do
that,
I
didn't
hear
what
you
said
when
you
were
on
mute.
Did
you
want
to
go
through
a
cross-examination
process
like
plenty
of
questioning
back
and
forth,
but
that
is
part
of
the
quasar
judicial.
A
That's
true,
thank
you
very
much
for
bringing
it
up
jay.
So
the
yes
there's,
there's
opportunity
for
cross-examination
staff.
Has
that
opportunity.
First.
Does
the
staff
have
any
cross-examination
questions
of
the
other.
A
No
you're
shaking
your
head
gotcha
does
the
applicant
have
any
cross-examination.
A
Okay,
okay,
so
I'll
proceed
on
now
with
the
public
hearing
with
the
public
comments
section
of
the
hearing.
Is
there
anybody
in
chambers
that
wishes
to
speak
on
this
matter?
They've
three
minutes
each
seeing
none
then
we'll
continue
on
with
there's
nobody
on
zoom
that
I'm
aware
of.
A
We
do
have
two
people
on
the
phone,
or
we
did
the
first
one
to
have
called
in
was.
A
You,
you
may
be
sworn
in:
first
pack
could
use.
W
Thank
you
chairman.
My
name
is
linda.
Louise
ross
preston,
I'm
a
resident
of
the
north
beach
area
at
805,
el
dorado
avenue.
I
also
work
as
a
full-time,
real
estate
agent
for
coastal
properties,
group
and
christie's
international,
and
have
been
doing
that
for
about
six
and
a
half
years.
Now,
mr
and
mrs
haas
are
not
only
friends
of
mine
but
they're
clients.
I
can
speak
professionally
to
their
case.
W
Having
had
their
home
listed
a
number
of
years
ago,
temporarily,
while
they
considered
selling
it
and
also
as
an
agent
who
sells
quite
a
bit
of
property
and
including
luxury
properties
on
the
north
end
of
clearwater
beach,
I
did
pull
some
statistics
based
on
mls
data.
I
think
we
can
all
agree
that
the
addition
of
a
pool
to
any
home,
especially
on
the
north
end
of
florida
beach,
is
of
value
not
only
to
the
homeowner
who
installs
the
pool,
but
also
to
the
neighborhood
in
general
and
to
the
city
as
well.
W
W
So,
having
said
that,
just
in
terms
of
marketability,
I
pulled
some
statistics
based
on
sales
within
the
past
six
months
of
single
family
residences
in
the
mandalay
subdivision
only
and
it
shows
that
properties
with
a
pool
sell
on
average.
The
active
days
on
market
is
55
days
versus
properties
which
do
not
have
a
pool
are
active
days
on
market
average
of
132
days
so
properties
with
the
pool
sell
more
than
twice
as
fast,
almost
three
times
as
quickly
as
those
without
a
pool
based
on
demand
and
marketability
of
those
properties.
W
So
not
only
will
the
addition
of
the
pool
be
increasing
the
property
values
nearby,
but
also
the
marketability
of
properties
showing
high
demand
and
doing
a
favor.
If
you
will
for
all
the
neighbors
in
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
I
think
their
proposal
for
the
pool
which
I
have
reviewed
many
times
is
beautiful.
W
It
would
add
value
to
the
neighborhood
it'd
be
lovely
to
walk
past
and
also
I
would
ask
you
to
note
that
there's
a
property
at
964
mandalay
avenue,
which
is
also
a
corner
lot.
It's
the
one
adjacent
to
juniper
street.
Just
before
you
enter
carlowell.
It
has
two
front
yards
based
on
juniper
and
also
on
mandalay
avenue,
and
that
pool
is
very
visible
on
the
east
side
on
mandalay
avenue
it
just
recently
sold
for
one
million
dollars.
W
It
is
just
shy
of
2200
square
feet,
so
that
property
was
not
even
on
the
market
for
a
day.
I
don't
believe
anyway.
Having
said
that,
you
do
have
examples
on
the
beach
that
property
has
very,
very,
very
shallow
setbacks.
On
the
north
and
east
side,
the
pool
is
on
the
south
side
of
that
property
adjacent
to
the
house.
W
I've
seen
a
number
of
houses
in
my
experience
that
have
varied
setbacks
and
very
small
setbacks
as
well
to
accommodate
entertaining
area
and
enjoyment
for
for
the
homeowners.
So
I
would
say
that
this
is
very
much
in
line
with
what
I
see
in
the
neighborhood.
Not
only
is
it
in
line
with
what
I
see
in
the
neighborhood,
it's
going
to
be
beneficial
to
not
only
the
homeowners
but
also
to
everyone
around
them
in
a
number
of
different
ways,
and
I
would
very
very
strongly
support
your
approval
of
mr
mrs
haas's
plan.
A
A
But
nascarella
am
I
saying
that
name
correctly.
A
Okay,
if
you
can
hear
me
again,
you
gotta
press
star
six
to
be
able
to
unmute.
X
E
A
X
X
Most
of
us
owners
on
the
north
beach
take
pride
in
our
homes
and
maintain
our
properties
to
the
standards
of
the
newer
construction
that
has
come
to
the
north
and
south
beach.
The
haas
property
is
meticulously
maintained
and
the
north
beach
community
can
take
pride
in
its
appearance
and
the
addition
of
the
pool
would
only
enhance
our
community
and,
in
a
small
way,
would
add
to
the
job
economy
for
a
pool
service
and
one
other
thing
as
an
anecdote.
X
A
All
right
that
we
have
one
more
caller,
I
believe
the
last
name
is
or
name
is
samuel
if
you've
unmuted
yourself.
Thank
you.
Yes,
yes,
my
name
is
samuel.
S
J
You
need
to
spell
your
last
name.
Please.
J
Okay,
do
you
swear
or
affirm
the
testimony
you're
about
to
give
us
the
entire
truth.
S
S
You
may
proceed.
My
name
is
samuel.
My
name
is
samuel
hudkin,
I'm.
Actually,
the
president
of
the
clearwater
beach
association,
I've
been
a
resident
for
about
11
years.
I've
been
the
president
for
about
five.
The
reason
that
I
want
to
speak
on
something
like
this
is
it's
actually
the
reason
I
even
joined
the
association.
S
S
Looking
at
all
these
codes
and
even
you
as
a
board
are
probably
frustrated
with
some
of
the
codes
that
you're
trying
to
you
know,
let's
just
say
gleam
under,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
you
know
nailing
someone
for
five
feet
worth
of
paver,
or
things
like
that,
which
is
was
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
joined
the
association
to
try
and
help
my
fellow
neighbors,
I
mean
all
the
things
that
have
been
said.
S
Obviously
I
agree
upon
and
and
many
of
the
neighbors
in
the
in
the
neighborhood
I
represent
and
there's
been
petitions
that
you've
seen
that
everyone
feels
that
this
family
and
that's
another
key
thing.
There's
a
family,
that's
trying
to
come
here,
it's
not
a
short-term
rental.
It's
not
someone
who's!
Only
going
to
be
here,
50
percent
of
time,
it's
a
family
that
is
trying
to
enjoy
the
property,
actually
augment
and
again
bring
more
beautification
to
our
neighborhood.
S
I
understand
that
if
there
we
were
talking
about,
even
though
we're
gaming,
this
is
principal
structure
that
if
someone
was
a
budding-
and
it
was
coming
close,
but
this
this
five
feet
is
really.
I
understand,
there's
two
frontage,
but
it's
really
used
as
their
backyard
more
than
anything
and
it's
not
their
front
and
it's
as
far
as
what
they're
going
to
be
utilizing
it
for,
and
it
really
does
create
an
asset
to
the
neighborhood
more
than
it
is
any
kind
of
deterrent
or
a
problem.
S
So
you
know
my
my
thoughts
are
the
fact
that
there
are
trying
to
augment
the
property
in
a
positive
way,
and
we
are
trying
to
look
at
this.
You
know
when
we
look
it
down
towards
the
commercial
area.
We've
seen
setback
issues.
Even
the
city
has
done.
Where
we've
come
with
five
foot,
you
know
encroachment
and
there's
been
flex.
That's
happened.
I
believe
that
family
that
is
trying
to
actually
augment
this
neighborhood
in
a
positive
way
should
deserve
that
flex
and
try
to
you
know,
help
them
out
and
make
sure
that
they
stay
here.
S
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
realtors
have
mentioned
about
sales
they
have
not
had.
There
was
a
time
I
think
the
two
sales
did
not
happen
because
they
didn't
have
a
pool
that,
because
they
did
not
have
a
pool,
they
were
not
able
to
sell
their
house,
and
that,
I
think,
is
a
perfect
example
of
how,
when
we
talk
about
likability,
that
you
know,
that's
how
you
know
much
of
a
big
difference.
It
is
by
having
a
pool
but
again
they're
here
to
stay,
and
I
think
that
this
pool
is
not
obtuse.
S
It's
not
going
to
be
something
that's
going
to
be
too
grand.
This
is
actually
going
to
be
covered
in
many
ways
and
not
even
seen.
So
I
just
don't
think
it's
a
problem,
many
of
my
fellow
neighbors
and
I'm
talking
about
hundreds
who
we've
talked
to
all
agree
that
this
is
something
that
they
think
is
a
positive
thing.
Thank
you
so
much
board
for
listening.
A
Thank
you
for
your
time,
just
confirming
what
staff
do
we
don't
have
anybody
else?
That's
out
there
waiting
on
the
phone,
correct,
okay
and
there's
nobody
else
in
the
chambers,
or
anything
like
that.
So
now
we're
moving
on
to
closing
remarks
by
staff.
They've
got
three.
A
U
Ellen
crandall,
thank
you
just
to
recap
the
case
before
you
is
an
appeal.
We
mentioned
the
three
criteria
that
must
be
satisfied
all
three
in
order
to
uphold
the
appeal,
as
I
stated
before,
staff
applied
the
code
correctly.
We
apply
the
code
that
we
have
not
the
code
that
we
wish
we
had
or
what
would
be
convenient.
U
A
Thank
you
now
we
have
closing
remarks
by
the
applicant.
O
Even
today,
there
was
no
specific
definition
on
one
hand
they
wanted
to
be
the
adjacent
neighbors
and
they
point
out
the
neighbors
on
it
on
gardenia,
on
the
other.
They
go
a
blank,
a
block
out,
but
very
in
our
opinion.
Immediate
vicinity
in
this
instance
is
likely
the
north
clearwater
beach
neighborhood
at
least
the
central
part,
excluding
carlawell
and
mandalay
point,
which
was
not
provided
in
there.
O
There
are
examples
of
primary
structures
with
reduced
front
setbacks,
and
the
applicant
provided
several
examples
of
patterns
of
development,
of
the
use
of
these
side
yards
for
recreational
purposes,
and
also
showing
that
there
were
primary
structures
in
the
front
setback,
especially
on
corner
lots
and
triple
frontage
lots.
Further.
The
development
order
goes
on
to
make
a
distinction
which
is
completely
arbitrary
and
not
supported
by
the
code
of
a
triple
frontage,
lot
versus
a
double
frontage
and
somehow
excludes
the
triple
frontage
examples
from
those
meaning
that
there
is
some
sort
of
pattern
of
development.
O
Secondly,
the
department
did
ignore
the
competent
and
substantial
evidence
provided
and
simply
dismissed
the
evidence
of
both
the
initial
submittal
and
the
post
drc
resubmittal
and
did
not
provide
any
contrary
evidence.
The
evidence
presented
today
of
specific
dimensions
and
patterns
and
surveys
is
the
first
time
that
the
applicant
has
heard
that
information.
It
was
not
provided
at
drc
or
otherwise.
O
This
does
meet
the
intent
and
harmony
of
the
code
of
a
residential
infill
which
is
providing
a
better
place,
a
more
consistent
home
and
one
that
upgrades
the
vicinity,
and
that
is
the
general
intent
and
harmony
of
the
code.
As
this
does
meet
the
criteria
for
approval
of
an
appeal,
we
would
respectfully
request
you
grant
the
applicant's
appeal
and
we
would
be
considerate
of
a
condition
to
move
that
pool
west
if
the
board
would
so
consider.
A
Thank
you
and
that
will
close
the
public
hearing
portion
for
today.
Now
we
have
board
deliberation
and
and
a
vote
does
anybody
from
the
board
wish
to
have
any
comments
on
this?
Make
any
comments
on
this
one
on
matters
like
this,
that's
taking
a
while,
we
usually
would
mike
flannery
seem
to
raise
his
hand
first
and
mary
lou's.
Second,
so
I'll
go
with
mike
first
I'll
go
second.
G
This
I
I
think
I
believe
the
staff
has
acted
correctly
in
what
they've
done
just
hold
to
the
code.
When
and
not
let
they
can't
make
decisions
on
these
type
of
things.
That's
their
job,
not
they're,
not
supposed
to
be
deciders
they're,
not
judges,
they're
they're,
looking
at
the
code
and
enforcing
it,
and
I
agree
with
what
they've
done,
but
I'm
looking
at
three
about
three
questions
here.
First
of
all,
I
don't
understand
this
13
foot
13
inch
height
thing.
G
Measured
from
what
I
mean,
this
isn't
a
flood
plain
someplace,
there
was
a
zero
foot
and
if
it
was
just
two
inches
higher,
this
pool
would
be
okay
I
and
to
what
are
you
measuring
on
the
pool,
the
lip
of
the
pool,
the
top
of
the
pool,
the
gutter,
the
whatever
so
it's?
This
thing
is
designed
to
me.
The
13
inches
is
to
say
you
can't
put
in
a
barbecue
or
you
can't
put
in
another
building.
That's
going
to
be
a
structure.
This
is
going
to
be.
G
This
is
less
than
the
height
of
my
my
garden
plot,
my
that
I
have
in
my
front
yard.
I
have
a
a
raised
garden
in
my
front
yard
quite
illegally
by
the
way.
So
that's
the
first.
I
don't
think
this
13
inches.
Is
it's
really
equivalent
in
this
condition
for
a
swimming
pool
that
everybody's
used
to?
I
also
that
the
sight
distance
does
concern
me
and
I
would
sure
like
to
see
it
move
back
because
one
way
or
another
now
it's
been
this
way
forever.
G
Anyway,
that's
hedges
been
up
there
and
they've
not
made
it
cut
it
down.
So
I
was
looking
at
it
previously
as
the
hedge
hit
every
hit
everything
and
I
think
they
will
want
to
hedge,
because
they're
going
to
be
swimming
and
people
are
going
to
be
driving
by
and
it's
going
to
be
uncomfortable
for
them
to
wave
at
everybody
going
by,
but
they
I
think
if
they
can
move
it
forward
out
of
the
sight
distance
that
solves
that
problem.
G
As
far
as
I'm
concerned
the
I
it's
as
if
yeah
the
structure
was
a
concern,
I
would
mention
that
if
there's
the
impervious
surface
ratio
question-
which
I
think
a
little
bit
of
understanding,
of
what
the
impervious
surface
ratio
really
is
it's
to
reduce.
Runoff
rapidly
off
of
property
and
also
cause
make
sure
that
enough
infiltrates
in
the
ground,
so
it
can
be
pumped
you
know,
if
you
can,
you
can
maintain
the
ground
water.
Well,
the
water
fro
falling
on
the
pool
itself
is
really
just
a
big
tank.
G
That's
going
to
be
that's
really
a
pervious
ratio
in
the
way
that
things
actually
function.
I
know
it
has
a
concrete
bottom
etc,
but
when
they
pump
it
out,
it's
going
to
be
just
like
a
retention
pond,
so
the
impervious
ratio
is
not
a
concern,
so
I
just
think
that
this
is.
It
makes
a
livable
house.
I
don't
think
if
I
drove
by
this
thing,
I
would
have
any
concerns
about
a
pool
being
there
where
people
are
enjoying
their
water,
their
their
their.
G
H
Yes,
I
kind
of
agree
a
lot
with
what
mike
just
said
when
I
started
looking
at
this
one
before
this
hearing
started,
I
was
on
the
fence,
no
pun
intended
because
of
the
fence,
and
because
my
perception,
which
was
verified
by
the
testimony
today,
that
if
this
was
built
as
designed,
the
only
change
that
anyone
would
notice
from
the
street
is
the
landscaping
improvement
and
the
removal
of
pavers
on
the
bruce
avenue
side
and
that
to
me
leaned
me
in
the
direction
of
thinking
it
might
be
unreasonable
for
the
city
to
deny
the
application
on
reflection,
though,
and
listening
to
the
testimony
here
today
and
unless
mr
daniel
tells
me
I'm
not
allowed
to
consider
testimony
heard
today
in
this
quasi-judicial
hearing.
H
I
am
persuaded
that
the
city
is
correct
in
their
argument
that
we
may
not
like
what
the
code
says,
but
they
have
consistently
applied
per
the
testimony
today.
They've
consistently
maintained
avoidance
of
a
five-foot
front
setback
in
this
residential
area,
and
I
don't
think
we
need
to-
and
I
certainly
personally
don't
want
to
be-
writing
a
definition
of
immediate
vicinity
into
the
code
where
there
isn't
one.
Now
I
don't
think
we
need
to
because
I
don't
think
it
makes
any
difference.
H
I
think
what
the
city
is
arguing
is
that
they
are
happy
with
their
infill
code
provisions
that
look
to
an
11
to
25
foot,
flexible
flexibility
for
front
setback
and
that
five
is
a
bridge
too
far.
I
don't
think-
and
I'm
not
prepared
to
decide
as
a
matter
of
this
appeal,
that
the
city's
decision
was
unreasonable,
arbitrary
or
discriminatory.
H
I
think
they're
trying
to
be
consistent
in
their
application
of
the
code
as
it's
written,
so
I'm
I'm
always
willing
to
be
talked
out
of
a
position,
but
I'm
leaning
toward
upholding
the
city's
decision.
F
Very
complicated
challenging
item
to
review
without
question,
and
you
know
I
think
that
the
code
does
allow
for
a
five
foot
setback.
That's
you
know
the
the
the
city
has
that
ability
to
make
that
determination
for
a
front
setback
of
five
feet,
the
otherwise
it
wouldn't
even
be
on
the
table
at
all
right.
So
it
is
allowed
to
be
five
foot
as
a
primary
structure.
F
There
are
as
an
as
a
person
that
lives
in
this
area.
You
know
just
just
outside
of
it,
but
right
there
and
walk
in
it
all
the
time.
The
neighborhood.
F
You
know
the
challenges
I
think
really
comes
down
to
immediate
vicinity
and-
and
I
think
mary
you
hit
on
it
and
everybody
else
has
hit
on
it.
There
is
without
question
front
primary
structures
within
five
or
close
to
five
feet
or
somewhere
within
it,
not
that
we
have
significant
data
provided
today
to
say
which
and
everyone
there
is
because
we
don't
know
what
the
immediate
vicinity
is:
north
clearwater
beach,
north
beaches,
lmdr
zoning,
lmdr
zoning.
When
you
look
at
the
zoning
map
for
all
of
clear
water,
probably
makes
up
60
of
clear
water.
F
North
clearwater
beach
is
not
the
same
as
clubhouse
estates.
North
clearwater
beach
is
not
the
same,
as
you
know,
other
areas
within
clearwater,
with
the
exact
same
zoning
and
maybe
more
regular
development
patterns
from
different
periods
of
time,
north
clearwater
beach
has
semi-circular
streets.
It
has
angled
streets,
it
has
triple
frontage.
Lodge
has
double
frontage.
Lots,
that's
corner
lots.
F
And
then,
when
I
take
into
consideration
that
this
primary
structure
is
13
inches
above
grade,
it's
not
a
negative
visually,
it
doesn't
affect
the
neighbors.
In
fact,
the
neighbors
have
come
out
in
forces
to
support
that
this
is
an
improvement
to
their
neighborhood.
Who
would
know
that,
in
my
opinion,
better
than
perhaps
others
that
don't
live
in
that
neighborhood,
that
might
be
making
a
decision
based
on
an
lmdr
zoning
that
is
ubiquitous
and
not
specific?
E
This
is
chris
santos,
and
you
know
I
I
think
jordan
just
hit
on
a
lot
of
my
thoughts
there
regarding
the
setback
and
mary
did
as
well,
and
that
that
has
been
the
sticking
point
for
me
is
this
setback
as
far
as
the
community
aesthetic?
E
I
think
the
applicant
can
work
with
the
site
plan
and
and
make
it
work,
so
it's
not
visible
from
the
street
and
I
think
that's
important,
but
I
I
am
I'm
willing
to
consider
this
appeal
and
go
the
way
of
of
the
homeowner
based
on
some
of
the
comments
that
jordan
has
just
mentioned.
A
Can
any
others
have
any
comments?
You
don't
have
to
just
ask
him
to
make
sure
we
have
all
of
our
deliberation.
Brian,
you
seem
to
be
shaking
your
head.
John,
you
have
you've,
got
a
good
poker
face
there.
So,
okay-
and
you
know
the
one
thing
that
I
think
that,
from
my
perspective,
that
I
just
I'm
still
kind
of
mulling
through
in
my
head
right
now
is
really
the
going
down
to
the
five
feet.
I
mean
there's,
there's
a
reason.
A
What
we're
really
doing
is
talking
about
taking
a
25
foot
setback
and
reducing
it
all
the
way
down
to
five
so
you're,
moving
it
by
20
feet
and
and
that
that
kind
of
doesn't
sit
well
with
me
if
there
aren't
a
lot
of
other
homes
in
that
neighborhood
in
that
vicinity
and
across
the
board
that
take
a
set
back
that
far
and
making
an
adjustment
without
some
real
good
cause
for
it.
So
that's
the
part
that
I'm
kind
of
hung
up
on.
A
As
I
look
at
this
overall
jay,
is
there
any
thing
that
you
can
add
from
the
standpoint
of
what
as
a
board,
our
obligation
is
to
weigh,
or
do
you
think
that
the
comments
have
been
staged
so
far
accurately
outline
what
we
can
consider
and
do.
I
I
We
know
from
various
appellate
proceedings
that,
depending
on
where
you
are
in
that
process,
the
evidentiary
standard
falls
away
and
that's
not
what
you're
looking
at
anymore,
depending
on
where
you
are
on
the
appellate
ladder
and
very
candidly,
your
the
city's
code
appears
to
fall
away
on
the
substantial
evidence
portion
in
terms
of
what
the
staff
did.
Let
me,
let
me
tell
you
what
I
mean
by
that.
I
Now,
what
it
doesn't
say
is
that
that
the
staff
or
the
department
misapplied
those
codes,
so
it
seems
to
me
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
really
a
review
of
the
law.
Did
the
staff
and
we
there
was
a
discussion
about
immediate
vicinity?
I
think
that's
that's
the
thing.
That's
a
proper
subject
of
misconstruing
or
mis
incorrectly
interpreting
the
code.
I
What
I
think
I
heard
the
applicant's
attorney-
I
don't
think
she
argued
quite
this
way-
was
that
there's
competent,
substantial
evidence
before
you
today
that
the
department's
decision
is
not
based
on
competent,
substantial
evidence.
I
don't
know
that.
That's
what
she
intended
to
argue,
but
that's
sort
of
the
way
that
I
I
heard
it
in
my
mind.
That's
not
really!
I
What's
in
my
in
my
view,
what's
before
you
today,
you're
really
looking
for
confident
substantial
evidence
at
the
first
that
the
department
misconstrued
or
incorrectly
interpreted
the
provisions
of
the
development
code
board
member
loud
discussed
earlier,
the
snyder
decision,
which
to
me
was
you
know
the
first
case
following
the
local
government,
comprehensive
planning
act
that
made
this
distinction
between
legislative
decisions
and
quasi-judicial
decisions,
and
since
that
time,
in
1993,
those
cases
are
all
over
the
place.
They're
they're
pretty
much
everywhere
in
terms
of
what
gets
what's
done,
what
isn't
done?
I
I
leave
you
with
that
and
and
suggest
and
encourage
you
to
confine
your
analysis
to
the
competent
substantial
evidence
relative
to
the
three-pronged
standard
on
appeal.
I
hope
that's
helpful
and
did
not
confuse
the
issues
more
than
they
already
are.
Thank
you.
A
Yeah,
I
don't
think
it
fits
with
our
template.
I
I
think
you
can
make
a
motion
to
grant
the
appeal
you
can
make
a
motion
to
deny
the
appeal
if
you're
going
to
grant
the
appeal,
I
think
from
what
I'm
hearing
that
motion
could
also
add
a
condition
to
it
relative
to
the
movement
of
the
pool
location,
for
example.
Am
I
correct
in
those
two
options
that
we
have
jay.
I
Yeah,
the
4-504
b
gives
you
the
ability
to
grant
to
issue
an
order
granting
or
returning
or
modifying
the
decision
appealed
from.
So
I
think
in
this
case,
in
order,
if
your
inclination
is
to
grant
the
appeal
with
that
condition,
you're
both
modifying
and
overturning
which
the
use
of
the
word
or,
I
think,
permits,
in
my
view,.
F
It'll
probably
get
some
more
discussion,
but
I
I
will
make
a
motion
to
grant
the
appeal
with
the
condition
of
moving
the
pool
to
the
west
so
that
it
is
not
located
moving
the
primary
structure
to
the
west
so
that
it
does
not
fall
within
the
site.
Visibility
triangles.
A
Motion
made
and
seconded
I
know,
we've
already
had
a
lot
of
discussion.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
the
motion,
though,.
E
A
F
F
Needs
to
be
amended
in
the
emotion,
but
I'm
open
to
discussion,
katie
or
michael.
I
see
katie
up
there.
I
don't
know.
A
Q
O
Yes,
they
are-
and
I
was
just
going
to
highlight
and
miss
clayton
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
the
pool,
the
fence
code
of
the
city
allows
for
a
fence
to
be
located
along
the
right
of
way
so
long
as
it's
no
more
than
48
inches
tall,
even
on
this
on
a
front,
a
secondary
frontage.
So
there
would
not
need
to
be
any
extraordinary
approval
to
allow
for
that
type
of
fence
unless
you
wanted
to
require
a
fence
higher
than
48
inches.
A
O
K
O
K
K
I
was
going
to
say
the
fence
code
limits,
fences
in
this
location
to
four
feet
in
height
and
also
requires
a
three
foot
wide
landscape
area
on
the
street
side
of
the.
F
Fence
so
I
will
amend
my
motion
to
include
a
fence
of
no
more
than
48
inches
tall
and
no
less
than
48
inches
tall
and
appropriate
landscape
screening
to
create
or
appropriate
landscape
screening
of
48
inches
in
high
minimum
as
well.
A
Okay,
so
the
motion,
a
memo
is
acceptable
to
the
maker
is
accepted
by
the
second.
I
think,
if
I
remember
robert's
rules
of
order
correctly
we're
in
good
shape
there.
So
the
motion
would
be
to
approve
the
appeal,
with
the
condition
that
the
just
make
sure
I'm
statistically
correctly,
that
it
be
relocated
further
to
the
west
and
that
there
be
screening
added
up
to
the
for
the
48
inch.
E
Q
F
H
A
A
There
being
nothing
else,
then
thank
you
all
for
participating
in
our
first
ever
zoom
meeting
and
our
meeting
is
adjourned.
Thank.