►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments April 24, 2019
Description
Description
A
A
C
A
Thank
you,
let's
be
sure,
to
silence
our
cell
phones,
please
and
pursuant
to
our
rules,
I'm
supposed
to
start
off
and
state
that
this
is
a
quasi-judicial
hearing
and
in
a
minute,
I'll
ask
our
legal
counsel
to
explain
the
procedures,
but
briefly
in
1986,
the
Florida
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
boards
like
this,
have
to
hold
a
quasi-judicial
hearing,
and
the
word
quasi,
as
we
all
know,
Latin
for
closed
or
similar.
So
tonight's
hearing
will
be
much
like
a
trial
as
close
as
we
can
get.
A
D
Proceeding
where
the
Board
of
Adjustment
acts
in
a
quasi-judicial
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity,
it
is
not
the
board's
function
to
make
law,
but
rather
to
apply
law
that
has
already
been
established
in
a
quasi
judicial
hearing.
The
board
is
required
by
law,
to
make
findings
of
fact,
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
apply
those
findings
of
fact
to
previously
established
criteria
containing
the
Code
of
Ordinances
in
order
to
make
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
before
it.
D
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
at
this
hearing
that
the
law
considers
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
to
the
issues.
If
the
confidence,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
met
the
criteria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinance,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
in
favor
of
the
applicant.
By
the
same
token,
if
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
failed
to
meet
the
tyria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinance,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
against
the
applicant.
A
D
A
Thank
you,
everyone
and
again,
thank
you
for
your
patience.
We
were
scheduled
to
have
the
hearing
last
month
and
it
was
postponed
because
we
didn't
have
a
full
board
and
now,
as
you
see,
we
do,
we
have
five
voting
members
and
two
alternates,
so
you've
all
been
sworn
and
pursuant
to
the
rules,
judicial
count
of
traditional
procedure,
for
example,
you
have
full
rights
of
cross
examination
of
all
the
witnesses,
the
staff,
the
applicant,
the
neighbors,
and
you
have
that
right
and
there's
no
time
limit
for
any
of
you.
A
We,
the
board,
has
always
expressed
a
desire
to
listen
to
everybody.
You
have
a
chance
to
argue
your
case,
explain
the
facts
and
your
argument
and
there's
no
time
limits.
I
would
urge
you
to
try
and
be
as
relevant
and
not
to
get
into
irrelevant
evidence,
and
our
legal
counsel
will
explain
what
that
is.
So
it
comes
up,
but
our
board
has
always
wanted
to
get
the
best
result
possible
and
it
means
listening
to
everybody
and
listening
to
each
other.
A
A
You
can
have
cross-examination
at
that
time.
So
if
you
get
up
to
speak,
it's
my
thought.
If
they
want
to
cross-examine
somebody
to
do
it
when
you
come
up
as
opposed
to
after
each
let's
say
when
the
staff
speaks,
I,
don't
know
there
be
any
cross-examination,
we
very
rarely
have
it,
but
you
have
the
right
to
do
so,
we'll
get
to
it
at
the
appropriate
time.
If
it
comes
up.
A
Another
thing
is:
when
you
get
up
to
speak,
we
hope
to
have
some
kind
of
a
visual
aid
so
that
everybody
knows
what
everybody's
talking
about.
If
there
is
no
such
evidence,
then
it's
going
to
be
a
problem.
You
have
to
come
up
and
tell
us
what
you're
talking
about
this
corner,
that
corner
of
the
property.
So
when
you,
when
you
get
up
to
speak,
please
try
to
understand
that
not
everybody
knows
what
you
are
saying
when
you
say
this
corner
or
here
or
there
be
a
little
more
specific.
A
So
we
all
know
what
you're
talking
about.
So
after
all
the
evidence
is
presented,
then
we
close
the
public
hearing
and
the
Board
of
Commissioners
will
then
have
the
word
of
adjustment
rather
will
have
their
comments
and
pass
a
motion
and
we
hope
there's
no
need
to
reopen
the
public
hearing
hope
they
have
all
the
evidence.
Then
it
closed
the
public
hearing
and
then
the
board
discusses
the
evidence
and
the
arguments.
A
E
546
square
feet
in
size
and
the
proposed
garage
would
add
an
additional
316
square
feet
to
the
footprint
of
the
structure.
This
property
was
subject
was
subject
to
a
minor
subdivision,
which
was
approved
on
June
7th
2013
at
that
time,
when
that
subdivision
occurred,
this
residential
unit
was
the
only
residential
unit
on
the
properties
or
on
this
property.
E
E
So
it
looks
like
it's,
in
conformance
with
the
existing
structure,
with
that
the
review
criteria
based
on
review
criteria,
one
the
need
for
the
requested
side,
yard
variance,
arises
out
of
the
fact
that
the
property
was
reconfigured
in
2013,
vo
of
a
parcel
split,
including
the
50-foot
private
road
easement.
The
private
road
was
created
an
unusual
lot
line
configuration
on
the
east
side
of
the
law.
However,
the
private
road
itself
is
not
unique
to
the
property.
The
city's
subdivision
standards
allow
the
reservation
of
access
ways
serving
subdivisions
to
be
privately
owned
and
maintained.
E
The
city
requires
setbacks
for
any
property
to
be
measured
from
the
lot
line
of
the
of
the
public
roadway
or
from
the
right-of-way
edge
of
a
private
roadway
staff
has
researched
the
law
split
and
has,
and
it
has
not
been
able
to
identify
any
written
evidence
that
the
setback
standard
should
be
should
not
be
followed.
The
need
for
the
requested,
rear
yard
variance
arises
out
of
the
need
to
again
align
the
garage
addition
with
the
existing
residential
structure.
E
This
presents
the
physical
limitation
on
the
property
caused
by
the
configuration
of
the
existing
residents
of
the
property
line
that
was
created
in
2013
with
the
minor
subdivision.
The
existence
of
the
private
roadway
easement
is
not
a
specialist
circumstances.
This
is
criterion.
2
warning.
The
granting
of
the
variance
is
not
unique
to
the
property,
since
there
are
other
private
roadways
in
the
city,
the
subdivision
was
approved
on
June
7
2013
and
the
private
road
is
and
was
recorded
on,
June
25th
2014,
the
applicant
purchased
the
residents
on
August
2000
to
August
26
2016
criterion.
E
Three
little
enforcement
of
the
dimensional
standards
would
not
limit
the
applicants
ability
to
enjoy
reasonable
use
of
the
land.
Since
the
property
already
has
an
existing
540
square
foot
garage,
the
existing
garage
driveway
and
parking
pad
meet.
There
were
the
minimum
standards
of
the
land
development
code,
priming
at
least
parking
two
parking
spaces
for
a
single-family
residence.
The
applicant
has
stated
that
the
standards
limit
their
ability
to
improve
their
home.
E
Granted
this
criterion
5
the
granting
the
variance,
would
not
presumably
diminish
property
values
or
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood.
Since
the
area's
generally
develop
to
a
substantial
is
substantial
homes,
including
substantial
garages.
The
garage
addition
itself
would
not
can
endure,
interfere
with
the
right
of
others
or
create
a
nuisance.
The
application
was
published
in
the
Tampa
Bay
Times,
and
the
property
owners
within
200
feet
were
noticed.
E
There
has
been
to
this
at
this
time.
Several
responses,
which
are
all
in
your
backup
and
have
been
provided
to
the
board
for
their
review
at
this
time
staff.
The
staff
recommendation
is
that
the
request
does
not
meet
the
review
criteria
established
into
15.0
to
be
of
the
land
development
code.
Therefore,
staff
recommends
denial
of
the
variance
for
relief
from
the
minimum,
rear
setback
and
minimum
side
yard
setback
requirements.
A
F
H
F
E
F
I
Good
evening,
mr.
chairman
and
members
of
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
be
here
tonight.
My
name
is
Cindy
Terra
Pawnee
I'm,
with
terapy
any
planning
strategies
at
128,
East
Herpen
Avenue
in
Tarpon
Springs
I
represent
the
applicant
Sally
döner
and
Vic
Randolph
I.
Do
we
have
a
presentation
with
all
my
exhibits
in
the
exhibit
book
also
on
the
overhead,
but
I
also
have
them
in
a
book
that
you
can
look
at
them
carefully.
I
I
Hopefully,
I'm
technically
proficient
to
do
this
I'm,
not
sure
if
I
can
talk
and
do
the
computer
at
the
same
time,
but
up
so
first
of
all
this.
These
two
first
two
exhibits
are
from
your
package.
They
kind
of
explain
where
the
site
is
before
we
get
into
that.
I
do
want
to
correct
one
thing:
that's
in
the
staff
report,
it's
on
page
two
in
the
during
the
background
discussion.
I
I
So
the
first
paragraph
of
the
background
states,
the
city
allowed
the
applicant
at
their
request
to
designate
the
south
side,
the
property
as
the
front
yard,
making
the
north
serve
as
the
rear
and
the
east
serve
as
a
side
yard.
First
of
all,
the
applicant
didn't
designate
that
the
front
yard
is
always
whatever
is
eject
by
your
code
definition.
Whatever
it's
adjacent
to
the
right-of-way,
you
do
have
50
feet
or
right
away
on
Riverside
Drive.
So
that's
obviously
the
front.
The
north
property
line
is
the
rear
in
the
east
and
west
or
the
sides.
I
We
don't
have
any
disagreement.
I
just
want
to
correct
that.
We
didn't
ask
for
that:
we're
not
deviating
from
the
code
in
any
way
on
that.
The
purpose
of
this
is
for
the
expansion
of
a
garage,
and
we
have
two
areas:
we're
asking
for
the
setback,
variance
the
north
and
the
East
I
mean
it
is
due
to
the
unusual
shape
and
configuration
of
the
site
and
the
location
of
this
access.
Easement.
The
word
is
easement.
It
is
not
a
right
away
and
we'll
talk
about
that
in
more
detail.
It
is
an
easement.
I
So
again,
let's
go
to
the
first
exhibit.
This
is
just
shows
the
general
area
after
you
put
go
if
you're
on
Riverside
and
you
go
over
the
Yacht
Club
bridge,
just
as
Riverside
starts
to
turn
south
and
go
along
the
Bayou,
that's
where
the
property
is
and
that
50-foot
ride.
They
have
a
little
strip
that
comes
out
to
Riverside.
That
is
50
feet
wide
and
that's
where
you
access
the
property.
I
I
This
this
is
in
your
pocket
as
well.
This
kind
of
hones
in
on
the
site
we're
talking
about
where
the
blue
dot
is,
is
the
house
that
we're
asking
for
the
variants
about
tonight
I'm.
You
can
see
on
the
right
side
to
the
right
of
that
house.
You
can
see
the
pavement
area,
that's
the
private
driveway
that
serves
both
my
clients,
property
and
the
property
to
the
north,
the
Zellers
so,
and
that
that
driveway
is
about
25
feet
wide.
I
This
is
probably
the
most
important
exhibit
to
explain.
What's
going
on
in
the
site
you
can
see.
The
outline
is
the
overall
site
that
we've
been
talking
about.
The
little
pink
rectangle
is
the
garage
expansion
area.
It's
immediately
adjacent
to
the
existing
garage.
It's
really
the
only
location
the
garage
could
be
expanded,
logically,
based
on
the
floor
plan
and
the
driveway
and
all
the
other
factors
that
why
someone
would
add
a
garage
on
the
yellow
everything
that's
outlined
in
yellow
is
the
50
foot
wide
easement
was
approved
as
an
easement,
not
a
right-of-way.
I
The
client
owns
that
50
foot
wide
easement
and
pays
taxes
on
it
every
single
year.
It
is
not
a
right-of-way,
it
is
not
dedicated
to
the
public
and
I'll
have
a
document
to
show
that
the
blue,
that's
kind
of
within
that
the
yellow
kind
of
on
the
eastern
side
of
it
is
showing
that
the
approximate
location
of
the
driveway
that
you
saw
in
the
earlier
exhibit.
So
the
blue
is
where
the
driveway
physically
is.
The
yellow.
Is
the
entire
easement.
I
So
you're
probably
wondering
how
did
this
minor
subdivision
get
approved?
How
do
we
get
to
this
situation
where
we
basically
have
a
flag
lot?
Well,
first
of
all,
the
city
does
allow
flag
Lots
and
it's
in
Section
20
3.0
3,
and
it
allows
a
flag
lot
if
you
go
through
the
minor
subdivision
process
and
it's
the
most
there's
some
criteria
in
there,
but
obviously
the
city
found
that
it
met
it.
The
most
important
one
says
that
the
driveway
will
be
at
least
20
feet
in
width
and
shall
be
paved
clearly.
The
site
meets
that
this.
I
That
shows
that
this
lot
and
the
property
to
the
north,
the
home
to
the
north,
we're
all
owned
by
one
property
owner
the
Bernstein's,
the
Bernstein's
owned
the
whole
piece,
and
they
are
the
ones
who
asked
for
this
minor
subdivision
and
what
they
want
to
do
is
lead
the
house
that
exists
today.
The
house
we're
talking
about
that,
has
the
variance
and
allow
to
a
new
lot
to
the
north
to
be
created,
which
was
vacant
at
the
time
now
has
a
house
on
it.
I
I'm
gonna
create
that
second
lot
and
the
city
allowed
that
and
if
you'll
page
through
those
exhibits,
it
shows
this
first
page
is
the
city's
approval
in
2013.
It
sets
out
the
setbacks
for
the
north
for
the
lot
to
the
north,
where
there
was
no
lot
no
house
at
the
time,
then
it
has
a
perpetual
easement
and
maintenance
agreement.
That's
a
private
easement
between
my
clients
and
the
sellers
who
owned
the
property
to
the
north.
They
didn't
know
at
the
time,
but
they
they
purchase
it
later.
I
How
the
drive
a
private
drive
has
to
be
repaired
and
then,
if
you
keep
paging
through
that,
you'll
see
there's
a
private
roadway
legal
description
and
then
this
the
last
page
in
that
the
specific
purpose
survey
is
basically
the
exhibit
that
I
showed
you
earlier
that
with
the
site,
the
site
itself,
showing
the
the
paved
area,
the
50
foot,
wide
easement
and
the
driveway
that
paved
area
on
that
east
side
again
and
it
states
on
the
specific
purpose
survey.
It
is
a
private
way.
It
is
not
a
right-of-way.
I
And
again,
this
minor
subdivision
met
the
minors
educational
requirements
in
this
city.
That
only
allows
you
to
create
have
a
total
of
two
Lots,
which
was
what
was
done
and
then,
secondly,
it
had
to
meet
flag,
lock
requirements
and
it
met
all
of
those,
and
the
most
important
again
is
that
it
had
a
dry
way
of
20
feet
in
width.
I
I
Little
hard
to
see
on
the
overhead-
but
this
is
the
page
I-
was
talking
about
this
specific
purpose
survey
and
if
you
look
on
where
that
50-foot
white
easement
is
on
my
clients
property,
it's
called
a
private
way
when
it
gets
on
to
the
north
property,
then,
which
was
vacant
at
the
time
now
has
a
house
on
it
that
private
way
was
reduced.
An
easement
was
reduced
to
25
feet
in
width.
I
This
is
again
looking
west,
you
can
see
the
garage
is
that
part
of
the
building?
That's
sticking
out
on
the
on
the
right
of
the
photograph
where
the
truck
is
is
basically
where
the
garage
is
proposed
to
be-
and
this
is
another
picture
now
I'm
standing
in
the
driveway
looking
south
back
at
you
can
see
the
those
windows
are
the
edge
of
the
existing
garage
and
where
the
truck
is
is
basically
that's
the
expansion
area
proposed,
and
so
the
the
expansion
will
go
from
the
existing
garage
to
about
where
the
trucks
right
Tyra's.
I
And
then
this
is
standing
at
the
where
the
new
edge
of
the
garage
will
be
on
the
Dena
Randolph
site,
looking
north
to
the
property
to
the
north,
and
the
only
reason
I
took
the
picture
is
just
to
show
two
things.
One,
the
the
new
the
house
to
the
on
the
north
extends
further
out
than
our
garage.
Will.
I
That's
really
just
the
purpose
of
that
to
show
that,
and
also
it
kind
of
shows
it
and
will
show
it
more
clearly
on
a
survey,
but
the
house
to
the
north
is
about
set
back
12
feet
from
the
common
property
line.
If
the
variance
is
approved
that
we're
asking
for
tonight,
the
new
garage
will
be
set
back
26
feet
so
will
be
twice
as
far
away
with
our
garage
than
they
are
to
our
common
property
line.
I
And
before
we
leave
the
site
just
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
wolves,
everybody
also
wants
you
always
want
to
say
and
I
asked
the
clients
this
myself.
Isn't
there
anywhere
else
you
could
put
the
garage
we
didn't
have
to
go
for
a
variance.
Let's,
let's
make
your
life
simple:
let's,
let's
not
go
for
the
variance
and
that
whole
process
it's
timely.
I
It
takes
some
time
it's
expensive
and
so
clearly,
when
now
that
you've
seen
the
property
I
think
you
can
see
that
they're
really
the
only
place
to
expand
the
garage
is
next
to
the
existing
garage.
You
wouldn't
put
it
on
the
water
side.
Put
it
on
the
south
side,
there's
no
garage
there,
you
will
be
extending
you'd,
rearrange
the
entire
flow
of
the
house.
So
that's
really.
The
only
place
that
we
have
is
to
put
that
garage
and
the
purpose
of
the
garages
expansion
is
to
the
garage.
I
Opening
itself
is
not
wide
enough
for
today's
size,
cars.
That's
a
problem
number
one
on
problem
number
two:
they
do
want
to
have
additional
area
for
storage,
they're,
an
active
family.
They
live
on
the
water,
they
have
their
active
and
other
sports
activities
and
they
want
to
have
room
to
store
that
equipment
as
well.
As
you
know,
we
get
to
real
size
cars
into
their
garage.
I
So
the
variance
request-
let's
talk
about,
there's
two
parts
to
it:
the
north
property
line
what's
required
is
30
feet,
we're
proposing
26.
The
current
garage
is
about
at
28
and
a
half,
and
you
can
see
from
the
site
play
that
you
have
and
it's
an
exhibit
one
because
of
the
way
the
garage
is
angled
as
we
go
out
to
the
east.
It
gets
closer
on
the
north
side.
So
even
though
it's
at
about
28
and
a
half
today,
when
we
add
in
the
new
garage
it'll,
be
26
feet.
I
I
If
the
variance
is
not
approved,
the
applicants
will
be
denied
a
reasonable
use,
since
they
won't
be
able
to
have
a
functional
garage
just
like
their
neighbors
as
Ehlers
and
other
homes
in
the
area.
You've
seen
correspondence
from
the
sellers
objecting
to
this
variance,
but
that
course
wellness
doesn't
identify
any
legitimate
reason
objecting
to
it.
In
fact
they
are.
Their
opposition
is
what
my
grandmother
would
call
the
pot
calling
the
kettle
black.
I
The
sellers
home
is
set
back,
half
as
much
as
ours
is,
and
the
sellers
seem
to
be
applying
a
different
standard
to
the
appellants
in'
applicants
than
they
do
to
themselves.
So
I'm
happy
to
hear
if
they
have
some
other
comments
today,
we're
interested
to
hear
with
those
ark.
But
at
this
point
I
don't
hear
any
reason
that
rises
to
a
legitimate
objection
to
appearance.
I
She,
even
here,
asking
for
a
variance
if
you
got
a
50
foot
setback
which
I
asked
myself
the
same
question
I
asked
the
client
that,
when
I
met
with
them,
the
reason
is
is
that
the
city
staff
is
treating
this
easement
as
a
right-of-way
and
saying
that
you
have
to
measure
the
setback
from
the
inside
edge
of
that
easement.
Well,
I,
don't
know
of
any
situation
where
the
city
does
that,
and
your
city
code
specifically
does
not
provide
for
that.
In
fact,
it
provides
the
opposite
exhibit
for,
and
your
I'd
like
to.
I
If
you
turn
to
that,
there's
a
definition
of
what
a
right-of-way
is.
I'll
just
read
that
a
strip
of
land
acquired
by
dedication,
prescription,
condemnation
or
purchased
for
use
as
a
road,
crosswalk
or
railroad
line.
Electric
transmission
line
oil
or
gas
pipeline
or
similar
use.
A
ride
away.
Reservation
is
a
strip
of
land
intended
for
future
purpose
as
a
ride
away.
The
term
right-of-way
does
not
include
easement.
Let
me
repeat
that
the
most
important
part,
the
term
right-of-way,
does
not
include
an
easement.
There
are
two
distinctly
separate
legal
issues.
I
A
right-of-way,
as
you
all
know,
is
owned
by
the
city.
The
city
maintains
that
right
away
and
pretty
much
the
only
thing
you
can
do
in
it
right
away
is
drive
on
it.
You
might
have
some
landscaping
in
it.
You
might
have
a
sidewalk,
but
a
ride
away.
Most
of
the
right
ways
in
the
city
are
for
streets
for
roads.
There
are
other
right
of
ways
like
they
said
for
gas
pipeline.
I
We
typically
don't
have
that
in
Tarpon
Springs,
an
easement
in
contrast,
is
owned
by
the
property
owner,
just
as
it
is
owned
by
the
mrs.
Dena
and
mr.
Randolph.
They
pay
taxes
on
that.
It
counts
towards
their
lot
size.
It
counts
towards
their
density,
and
you
should
be
able
to
measure
the
setback
from
that
property
line,
not
the
inside
edge
of
the
easement,
which
is
what
the
staff
is
saying.
I
Exhibit
4
is
a
letter
written
on
May,
26
2017.
This
was
in
response,
the
clients,
pepper
suit
of
quite
a
few
different
options
to
try
and
get
them
the
the
garage
expansion
and
they
thought
well.
If,
if
the
city
is
saying
it's
an
easement
or
maybe
it's
a
ride
away,
why
don't
we
try
to
vacate
it?
And
then
we
won't
have
that
issue
anymore,
at
least
make
the
easements
smaller
make
the
right
away
smaller,
because
the
city
has
said
various
things
about
it.
I
The
letter
says
the
city
public
has
no
legal
interest
and
no
right
to
the
ingress/egress
over
the
easement
on
your
property.
So
a
May
2017,
the
city's
saying
it's
an
easement
number
one
and
they're
also
saying
the
city
can't
vacate
it,
because
it's
it's
a
private
easement
between
those
two
property
owners-
and
we
agree.
It
is
a
private
easement
between
my
clients,
Edina
Randolph's
and
the
property
owner
to
the
north.
So
the
so
the
letter
I
agree
with
the
letter.
It's
correct.
I
I
So
with
this
letter,
the
city
again
declared
that
it
is
an
easement
and
not
a
right
away,
so
the
setback
should
be
measured
again
from
that
we're
merely
asking
that
setback
be
measured
from
the
property
line,
just
as
the
city
measures,
all
other
setbacks
in
the
land
development
code.
However,
even
if
the
city
said
look,
we
recognize
that
this
is
a
private
easement,
but
you
guys
have
to
maintain
the
access
to
let
the
people
to
the
north
through
okay.
We
would
agree
with
that.
I
The
garage
expands
will
be
25
feet
from
that
closest
edge
of
the
driveway
as
further
evidence
that
the
setback
should
be
measured
from
the
property
line
in
exhibit
to
the
city.
This
was
the
letter
where
the
city
approved
the
minor
subdivision,
and
in
that
they
said
what
the
setbacks
would
be
for
that
new
lot,
if
it
when
it
were
developed
and
guess
what
they
said
in
the
letter
that
setbacks
will
be
measured
from
the
property
line
likely
to
if
I
could
refer,
you
now
to
exhibit
five.
I
Exhibit
five
I
obtained
from
the
city
records?
It's
the
as-built
survey
of
the
Zeller
home,
the
property
to
the
north,
the
Rodney
Chapman
letter
when
he
approved
the
minor
subdivision
says
the
home
had
to
have
on
the
east
side.
Same
side
were
talking
about
for
the
Dena
Randolph's
on
that
east
property
line
it
had
to
have
a
25-foot
setback
and
it
said
the
setbacks
could
be
measured
from
the
property
line.
When
you
look
at
the
building
permit
that
was
issued,
and
this
is
the
ass
built
survey.
I
I
I
There
are
five
criteria
that
have
to
be
met
and
I'd
like
to
talk
about
those
briefly.
The
city
staff
has
already
agreed
in
their
staff
report
that
we
meet
numbers
four
and
five,
so
I'm
going
to
concentrate
on
one
two
and
three,
so
let
me
go
through
those
if
I
might
the
first
one
is
that
the
need
arises
out
of
the
physical
surroundings
shaped
topo
or
other
physical
or
environmental
conditions.
I
I
If
we
were
not
allowed
to
use
this
easement
at
all
for
anything
which
is
apparently
what
the
staff
thinks,
the
easement
is
37
percent
of
the
total
lot,
it's
quite
large,
because
it's
50
feet
wide
and
so
to
say
that
we
can't
use
it
for
anything,
not
even
as
part
of
our
setback
really
violates
my
clients,
rights
and
property
rights
for
this
site.
The
clients.
Clearly
understood
this:
when
they
bought
the
property,
they
understood,
there
was
a
50-foot
easement.
I
They
understood
there
was
a
driveway,
they
understood
they
had
a
maintenance
obligation
between
themselves
and
the
sellers
actually
had
not
bought
the
property
the
time,
but
they
knew
that
whoever
bought
that
they
would
be
partners
in
that
deal.
They
understood
all
that.
The
only
thing
they
didn't
expect
was
that
city
to
calculate
and
measure
the
setback
from
the
inside
edge
of
this
easement,
instead
of
from
the
property
line
like
it's
measured
everywhere
else
in
town.
I
The
second
criteria
that
we
believe
we
have
met
is
that
this,
the
special
circumstances
have
not
been
self
created
or
resulted
from
an
action
of
the
applicant.
Well,
they
clearly
were
not.
The
minor
subdivision
was
created
and
done
by
the
Bernstein's,
the
previous
owner.
That
was
done
in
2013.
My
clients
purchased
this
property
in
2016,
so
they
did
not
create
this
unusual
situation
of
the
lot
being
the
shape
it
is.
They
did
not
create
on
the
easement
and
the
driveway
that
all
was
in
effect
when
they
bought
the
property.
I
The
third
criteria
is
that
little
enforcement
of
the
rules
would
have
the
effect
of
denying
the
applicant
reasonable
use
of
the
property.
Clearly,
littoral
enforcement
is
going
to
deny
them
a
reasonable
used
to
have
a
reasonably
sized
garage
which
the
staff
agrees.
It's
a
reasonably
sized
garage
given
the
surrounding
area
and
other
sized
garages,
but
the
only
logical
place
to
expand
that
garage
is
in
the
location
where
we're
talking
about
unless
they
rearrange
the
entire
floor
plan,
the
entire
site
demolish
the
garage
they
have
and
build
a
new
garage
somewhere
else.
I
So
if
the
variance
is
denied,
they
will
not
be
able
to
have
a
garage,
that's
wide
enough
for
two
cars
and
for
the
storage
of
their
sports
equipment
that
they
would
like.
They
also
have
you
know
small
boats
and
I
call
them
ski-doos,
the
jet
skis,
and
so
they
want
to
store
those
inside.
For
obvious
reasons,
the
fourth
and
fifth
criteria.
Again,
the
staff
has
agreed
that
we
meet
those
with
just
a
touch
on
them.
Briefly,
I'm
granting
the
variance
will
not
confer
any
special
privilege.
I
It's
not
going
to
be
a
special
privilege,
it's
basically
a
garage
to
be
able
to
get
two
cars
into
it
and
get
their
equipment
into
it.
If
the
staff
has
already
said
it's
generally
the
same
size
as
garages
in
the
area,
so
there's
no
special
privilege
the
fifth
criteria.
Again,
the
staff
agrees.
We've
met
this
criteria
that
it
will
not
substantially
diminish
property
values.
Clearly,
if
you're,
improving
a
property
and
adding
a
garage,
that
is
a
typical
use
that
you
would
have
on
a
residential
property,
how
could
you
possibly
diminish
someone
else's
property
property
value.
I
Let
me
just
give
you
some
dimensions,
if
approved,
just
to
give
you
the
kind
of
summarize
here.
If
the
proposed
garage
is
approved,
it
will
be
50
feet
from
the
East
property
line.
You'll
be
25
feet
from
the
closest
edge
of
the
driveway,
the
driveway
that
we
share
with
our
proper
neighbor
to
the
north.
It
will
be
located
completely
outside
of
the
driveway
in
the
easement.
I
It
will
not
encroach
into
either
one
of
those
and
on
the
north
side
the
garage
expansion
will
be
twice
as
far
from
the
Zellers
home
as
Ellers
property
as
they
are
from
us,
will
have
a
26
foot
setback
to
that
common
property
line.
Their
house
is
12
feet
from
the
common
property
line
to
the
east.
The
property
owner
to
the
east
will
be
52
feet
to
will
be
50
feet
to
the
property
line,
our
adjacent
property
owner
to
the
east.
I
There's
a
single-family
home
there
he's
I,
haven't
measured
it
exactly,
but
I
did
eyeball
it
and
kind
of
kind
of
tell
what
it
is.
It's
about
10
feet.
So
where
would
be
50
feet
away?
Our
closest
part
of
our
house,
the
closest
part
of
their
house,
is
10
feet
from
our
common
shared
property
line,
so
there's
huge
distances
between
the
garage
expansion
and
both
of
our
immediate
neighbors.
I
If
the
variance
is
not
approved,
it
will
result
in
a
differential
treatment
to
these
applicants,
since
they
won't
have
the
same
privilege
to
have
it
just
have
a
simple
garage
just
like
everyone
else
in
the
neighborhood.
Now
we
do
have
letters
of
support
that
she
saw
from
some
of
our
neighbors
who
thought
that
there
would
not
be
any
harm
to
them
and
I
thought
it
was
a
good
idea
to
support
the
variance.
I
D
You
very
much
mr.
chairman
may
I
make
it
clear.
Mr.
pani,
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
that
you
had
about
interpretation
of
the
code
as
to
whether
it
was
a
right
away
or
an
easement.
Are
your
clients
asking
for
an
interpretation
of
the
code
in
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
building
department
under
Section,
a
of
under
subsection,
a
of
section
215
of
the
code,
or
are
you
presenting
evidence
in
support
of
a
variance
from
the
code?
Well.
I
When
I
got
involved,
it's
the
long
answer
when
I
got
involved,
the
application
for
the
variance
had
already
been
filed,
I'm
well
aware
that
we
could
have
a
filed,
an
administrative
interpretation
to
challenge
that
part
of
it.
Quite
frankly,
the
application
had
already
been
filed.
There
was
a
public
hearing
scheduled,
so
we
just
decided
to
proceed
along
this
path
and
ask
for
the
variance
what
I'm,
hoping
that
I'm
showing
you
is
that
there's
many
legitimate
reasons
to
approve
the
variance
I,
don't
agree.
I
That's
not
saying
that
I
agree
with
the
south's
interpretation
about
where
it
should
be
measured
and
I.
Guess
I
would
like
you
all
to
if
you
do
decide
to
do
it,
make
it
clear
that
the
setback
is
X
feet
from
the
inside
edge
of
the
easement
whatever.
That
number
is
really,
in
our
estimation,
that's
0
feet
or
1
foot.
So
no
I'm
not
asking
for
an
interpretation.
We
do
want
to
proceed
with
the
variance
I'm
just
providing
evidence
as
to
why
it
complies
with
the
variance
criteria.
Okay,.
D
E
E
A
section
of
code
on
the
subdivision,
minor
subdivision,
section,
section:
1
B
each
Hawk
shall
about
a
public
or
a
private
right-of-way
for
the
required
minimum
walk
frontage
of
applicable
zoning
district.
So
the
reason
why
we
determined
that
it
is,
in
fact
a
right-of-way
is
because
you
can't
have
the
sutlers
lot
exists
without
determining
that
that
right-of-way
occurred
in
order
for
the
subdivision.
E
E
Is
an
easement,
but
we
do
have
other
public
right.
We
other
have
other
private
right
of
ways
that
are
owned
by
other
people.
They
are
not
actually
owned
by
the
city
and
sometimes
the
city
doesn't
have
right
to
even
traverse
them
unless
they're
granted
those
rights,
those
also
our
functional
private
streets,
private
right
of
ways
that
are
easements
when
sometimes
private
streets,
it
just
depends
on
how
they
were
designated
and
at
what
time
they
were
desert.
E
I
E
E
May
very
well
have
in
the
definition
but
you're.
You
can't
have
one
section
saying
go
to
this
section,
follow
this
follow
that
section
and
that's
how
you
get
there.
If
you
don't
have
deviation
in
that
minor
subdivision
section
that
leads
back
to
that
section
which
isn't
here
so
I
agree
that
the
construction
is
not
correct
here,
but
at
the
same
time
these
are
the
provisions
of
the
code
and
we're
interpreting
the
provisions
of
the
code
as
there
as
there
and.
I
E
Wasn't
it
was
I
I
can't
answer
how
it
was
approved,
all
I
can
tell
you,
is
it
was
approved
and
it
wasn't
it
was
written
in
and
into
the
and
adopted
into
the
record
as
an
easement,
so
I
don't
know
how
they
actually
approved
it.
I
wasn't
part
of
those
those
hearings,
so
I
don't
know
that
discussion
on
how
they
got
there.
So.
I
A
F
A
A
K
K
Think
that
mr.
Aponte's
comments
lend
itself
to
comparison
to
my
property
I'm
not
applying
for
anything.
The
applicants
are
my
property's
owned
our
100
and
then
our
100
property
has
a
25-foot
rear
setback
of
whatever
side
setback,
I
think
between
ten
and
ten
and
twelve
feet
or
15
feet
on
one
side
and
30
feet
to
the
front.
I
have
43
43
feet
to
the
front.
I
have
17.
On
my
north
side,
I
have
12
on
my
south
side
and
I
have
33
to
my
east,
so
I'm
in
full
compliance
with
the
r100
setbacks.
K
What
leads
into
my
property?
What
you
see
at
the
very,
very
right
corner?
There
is
not
a
private
way.
That's
the
25-foot
setback.
There
is
no
shared
Drive
there.
None
of
the
soil,
so
comparing
my
property
to
the
subject.
Property
makes
no
sense,
because
what
we
have
across
this
subject,
property
is
a
fair
tribe
and
I
am
NOT.
A
real
estate
lawyer.
I,
do
not
understand
this
code.
I,
don't
know
how
you
interpret
easements
or
how
you
interpret
the
right
away
by
what
I
do
know
is
that
the
title
is
not
dispositive.
K
It
is
d
subjected
use
where
we
use
the
property
for
which
matters
and
with
that
it
is
a
right
away
because
I'm
driving
in
and
out
there
every
day
and
so
does
my
family
and
we
have
a
right
to
pass
through
there.
So
while
there
is
an
easement
agreement,
a
perpetual
easement
agreement
that
comes
with
a
maintenance
agreement
and
what-have-you,
which
is
a
private
agreement,
it's
nevertheless
a
private
road
that
goes
across
482
Riverside
Drive,
which
creates
a
right-of-way
for
me
to
go
in
there
and
I
will
also
suggest
to
you.
Mr.
K
Hanna
I
think
you
mentioned,
that
of
the
Randalls
paid
taxes
on
that,
and
that
is
correct.
But
if
you
do
a
cursory
review
of
the
of
the
property
appraiser's
records,
you
will
see
that
they
are
getting
a
credit
for
having
a
right-of-way
across
their
property.
That's
what
the
property
appraiser
says.
You
know
that
that
it
doesn't
know
what
I
have.
K
Now,
with
respect
and
I
understand,
you
know
that
this
is
like
presenting
a
resume.
We
all
want
to
look
as
good
as
we
can
when
we
do
those
things,
and
so
the
missed
Hannah
does
a
great
job
for
the
Randalls.
You
know
and
pointing
out
to
you
over
and
again
on
how
the
Randalls
property
is
26
feet
away
from
mine
and
I
am
twelve
feet
to
they're,
properly
aligned.
Well,
of
course,
I
am
because
the
twelve
feet
are
my
sight
and
I'm.
K
In
compliance
with
the
twelve
feet
on
my
side
and
they're
26
feet
is
their
back
and
they
are
not.
In
compliance,
I
mean
that's
already
a
nonconformity,
because
the
other
have
more
than
that
in
the
back.
If
they
were
to
get
that
variance,
granted
I
think
they
would
be
encroaching
on
their
rear
setback,
so
I
don't
think
that
that
ought
to
be
compared
and
that
that
ought
to
be
taken
into
consideration.
The
fact
that
the
matter
is
that
the
subdivision
of
2013
was
a
bargained
for
agreement,
that's
exactly
what
it
was
I
was
there.
K
I
was
part
of
it
and
the
restrictions
have
been
opened
notorious.
They
are
recorded
and
the
Randalls
knew
that
they
looked
at
it.
They
considered
it
they
bought
it.
I
will
also
suggest
to
you
that
the
purchase
price
of
their
property
was
part
and
parcel
of
that
consideration.
I
did
a
comparison
of
the
property
prices
when
they
bought
in
2015
and
if
I
may
ask
for
a
hand.
K
The
subject
property
was
bought
by
the
Randalls
for
four
hundred
forty
three
thousand
eight
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
per
square
foot
right
on
the
bayou
right
across
the
Bayou.
At
the
same
time,
and
I
highlighted
the
numbers
for
you
on
the
property
records
as
six
twelve
Bay
for
across
the
Bayou,
a
property
sold
for
three
hundred
and
seventy
five
thousand
fourteen
hundred
and
twenty
four
square
feet
for
two
hundred
and
sixty
three
dollars
of
wood,
the
property
next
to
it.
K
The
big
setback
des
meant
now
the
land
development
code
from
what
I
understand,
provides
for
two
parking
spaces
for
an
or
100
zone
property
in
its
tiny,
daddy
subject,
property
is
also
in
our
100
zone
property.
The
applicants
have
a
garage
I
understand,
mr.
upon
his
argument
that
it's
four
hundred
five
hundred
forty
six
square
feet
and
he
can't
fit
two
cows
in
there.
Let
me
put
them
in
there
for
you
seriously,
I
mean
that's
a
normal
garage.
A
normal
garage
starts
out
twenty
by
twenty
that's
four
hundred
square
feet.
K
A
medium-sized
garage
is
24
by
24
and
an
oversized
garage
is
26
by
26.
That's
what
we
have
in
Pinellas
County,
so
the
Randall's
garage
Falls,
clearly
within
a
medium
sized
garage
with
546
square
feet.
Now
a
right
outside
the
garage
and
mr.
apini
showed
you
a
photo
that
has
a
gravel
parking
spot
and
three
cars
fit
there
and
they
have
an
additional,
a
gravel
parking
path
for
two
more
cars
and
and
again,
if
I
may
ask
miss
over.
K
F
K
It
would
bother
me-
and
let
me
tell
you
why,
because
it
is
in
it
because
it
is
encroaching
on
the
property
setbacks.
The
only
the
only
reason,
sir,
why
I'm
using
the
garage
or
parking
argument
is
because
the
parking
garage
argument
meant
was
made
by
the
applicant.
They
said
they
have
a
two
car
garage
and
they
can't
fit
causing
it.
That's
why
I'm
making
the
garage
argument?
K
It
doesn't
matter
what
type
of
structure
it
is,
but
if
you
wish
to
talk
about
the
structure,
I
will
tell
you
why
I
have
an
issue
with
it,
and
the
issue
is
twofold.
The
issue
is
twofold,
because
not
only
does
it
encroach
on
the
on
the
setbacks,
it's
already
a
non-conforming
property,
and
this
will
compound
the
nonconformity
and
what
what
was
not
presented
here
is
today
that
this
not
only
includes
the
garage.
K
It
also
includes
a
nearly
nine
hundred
foot
nine
hundred
square
foot,
second-story
storage-
so
we're
not
just
talking
about
a
little
garage
extension,
we're
talking
a
total
garage
square
footage
of
eight
hundred
and
sixty
six
square
feet
once
it
is
completed,
plus
an
eight
hundred
and
seventy
seven
square
feet.
Second,
a
story,
a
storage
unit,
which
will
also
obviously
encroach
on
the
over
the
property
line.
F
F
K
Have
this
picture
here,
but
the
written
agreement
is
really
is
more
directed
at
your
questions,
because
that
particular
agreement
states
that
there
is
to
be
no
encroachment
within
this
roadway,
and
this
is
not
the
subject
of
tonight's.
A
hearing
and
I
think
it's
outside
of
what
is
being
discussed
today.
You
know
that
roadway
has
been
crouch
significantly
with
landscaping
and
building,
all
of
which
is
against
the
the
the
language
of
the
agreement
that
is
before
you
so
talking
about
whether
the
the
width
of
the
roadway
is
wide
enough.
I.
A
K
But
it
seems
to
me
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
this
is
an
AR
100,
sound
neighborhood
and
as
an
are
100
sound
neighbor
I
must
be
able
to
have
a
regional,
reasonable
expectation
that
D
that
the
neighborhood
develops
within
the
confines
of
that
code.
That's
why
we
bought
them.
That's
why
other
neighbors
bought
that,
because
we
have
those
various
setbacks
and
debts.
K
Plan
here
for
you
to
take
a
look,
the
subject
property
is
on
there
and
I've
highlighted
for
you
in
red
the
neighbors,
who
opposed
this
variance
in
I,
highlighted
for
you
in
green,
in
all
fairness
to
neighbors
who
are
supporting
this.
Did
this
variance
any
who
have
written
letters
on
behalf
of
the
Randalls,
and
you
will
see
that
that
the
neighbors
who
support
the
Randalls
there
are
many
houses
down
the
road
as
a
matter
of
fact,
they're
all
over
350
feet
away.
K
D
A
L
H
M
Good
evening,
thank
you.
My
name
is
Greg
Lee
icarus,
I
have
resided
at
four
seven.
Eight
Riverside
Drive
since
2001
and
I
have
100%
strongly
stand
behind
the
city's
decision.
To
deny
this
variance,
in
addition
to
my
name
of
Christian
everything,
my
name
of
a
Christian
has
pointed
out,
I
not
only
believe,
but
know
that
this
variance
will
impact
the
value
of
my
property.
M
The
pros
the
proposed
build
is
a
possibly
50
feet
away
from
my
property
line
and
my
view
of
the
Kramer
Bayou
when
I
was
reading
through
the
application,
1909
requested
variance
I
was
taken
by
the
Roman
numeral
number
three
number:
five,
that
the
review
criteria
of
variance
in
the
state's
granting
this
variance
would
not
substantially
diminish
property
values
in
the
surrounding
areas.
For
me,
it
will.
M
It
will
block
my
view
from
my
balcony
in
my
master
bedroom,
plus
my
views
from
all
quarters.
My
house
that
I've
enjoyed
for
many
years
and
my
neighbors
have
expressed
the
same
feelings
so
I'm,
sorry,
but
all
this
for
storage
they
want
to
go
up.
There
are
30
feet
on
top
of
this
proposed
garage
that
I
guess
I
didn't
really
hear
about
in
this
gearing,
but
in
the
city's
plans
they
were
saying
they
want
to
go
up.
They
would
block
my
view
for
storage
I.
M
Just
don't
really
understand
that
point
of
it
I,
don't
know
much
about
setbacks
and
so
forth,
but
I
believe
the
city
is
doing
the
diligent
job
to
make
sure
that
they
enforce
these
requirements.
I
just
want
to
thank
you
many
for
here
in
my
strong
feelings
and
it's
very
important
matter.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank
you.
J
A
M
H
L
N
Hello,
my
name
is
Brad
Giles
I'm,
the
resident
of
463
Riverside
Drive,
located
southeast
of
the
house,
were
discussing
I'm
a
neighbor
in
good
standing
with
Vic
and
Sally
and
I'm
very
much
a
live
and
live
live
and
let
live
neighbor.
However,
the
addition
of
the
second-story
over
the
garage
would
block
a
valued
Vantage
of
my
waterfront
view
of
creeper
value,
and
it's
for
this
reason
that
I
opposes
construction.
I
believe
that
understanding
among
neighbors
is
important
and
hope
that
this
decision
will
not
negatively
impact
our
relationship.
A
I
F
I
I
First
of
all,
I'd
neglected
to
mention
this,
but
it's
clearly
written
in
the
easement
agreement.
The
easement
is
not
dedicated
to
the
public.
It
is
only
dedicated
to
two
people:
two
property
owners,
the
Dina
Randolph's,
my
clients
and
the
sellers
to
the
north,
and
in
fact,
as
you
saw
in
all
the
documents,
the
easement
terminates
at
the
Zellers
north
property
line,
and
there
is
no
right-of-way
or
street
or
anything
else
to
the
north
of
that
that
it
can
possibly
connect
to
it
butts
up
against
another
piece
of
private
property.
I
Again
there
was
someone
trying
to
imply
that
somehow
that
the
Dina
Randolph's
knew
about
it
and
they
created
this
problem,
they
did
not.
The
minor
subdivision
was
approved
by
the
city
in
2013.
You
have
that
letter
in
front
of
you.
They
purchased
the
property
in
in
2016
3
years
later,
so
did
they
know
what
they
were
getting?
Yes,
they
did,
but
they
did
not
create
any
of
these
issues.
I'm.
Some
of
the
comments
made
by
mr.
Zeller.
Clearly,
you
all
know
this.
I
I
Ya
also
I'd,
like
to
mention
I,
think
you
can
see
it.
You'll
see
it
on
this
photograph
I'm
about
to
show
you
that
the
zellers
property
is
two
stories
above
garage.
The
Dina
Randolph's
property
is
in
one
story
house.
So
how
that's
going
to
affect
mr.
Zeller
is
view
or
impact
him
I
really
fail
to
understand
that
and
I'm
gonna
pass
this
out
I'm
to
you
all.
I
J
I
So
again,
I'm
when
I
took
the
photograph
I'm
standing
at
at
the
edge
of
the
shared
driveway,
the
White
House
at
the
top,
with
the
at
the
top
of
the
photo
with
the
red
roof.
That's
the
Zeller
home!
It's
two
stories
above
parking
because
it's
in
the
flood
zone
as
our
my
client,
but
it's
a
basically
a
three
storey
property.
So
to
try
and
make
some
claim
that
a
three-story
house
is
somehow
being
impacted
by
a
one-story
house
is
adding
a
small
little
second
floor,
not
along
towards
the
water
view
either.
I
G
I
I
He
didn't
buy
view
and
didn't
buy
waterfront
property,
so
he
doesn't
have
any
right
to
a
waterfront
view,
but
quite
frankly,
he
has
it
because
my
clients
property,
if
he
looks
to
the
west,
towards
the
water
towards
the
bayou
he's
on
the
second
and
third
floors,
and
my
client
has
a
one-story
garage,
a
house
with
a
small
portion
that
will
be
a
two-story.
So
how
that
can
be
really
impact
him
and
again
it's
a
view
that
he
didn't
buy.
It
doesn't
really
have
a
right
to
I'm
the
third
photograph.
Let
me
Blake
to
pass
out.
I
The
photograph
I
just
passed
out
I
am
standing
on
the
opposite
side.
The
south
side
of
Riverside
right
at
that
bend
standing
in
front
of
mr.
Giles
house
he's
a
second
gentleman
who
spoke
the
blue
car
there.
That's
my
car,
the
Brown
House
on
the
Left.
That's
my
clients,
property,
that's
the!
Where
I
talking
about
the
variance
the
white
house
with
the
red
roof.
Of
course,
that's
the
sellers
that
we've
been
talking
about
that
shares
the
driveway
and
the
brown
house
is
just
out
just
outside
the
picture.
That's
mr.
I
Lee,
icarus
property,
our
neighbor
to
the
east,
so
standing
from
mr.
Giles
property
I
fail
to
understand
how
he
can
even
see
the
garage
the
garage
is
going
to
be
about
where
that
tall
palm
tree
is
so
I
really,
you
know
visually
how
that
can
impact
him
at
that
distance.
I!
Really!
Don't
think
that
that's
possible
number
one
and
number
two
is
you
know
it's
not
part
of
your
variance
criteria
that
he
that
his
view
changes
as
a
result
of
someone
else's
proposal,
even
contiguous
neighbors.
Mr.
I
one
of
the
applicants,
one
of
the
speaker's
made
the
point
that
that
two
people
immediately
contiguous
have
spoken
opposition.
That
is
true,
that's
mr.
Zeller
or
mr.
Lee
occurs,
but
even
contiguous
neighbors
need
to
have
a
legitimate
reason
for
the
variance
to
oppose
this
variance
and
the
fact
that
our
this
house,
this
garage,
not
even
a
livable
space.
As
remember
birds,
pointed
out,
it's,
the
garage
area
will
be
twice
as
far
away
as
his
Ehlers
property
is
from
us.
I
fail
to
understand
how
that
is
a
legitimate
reason.
Again.
Mr.
Lee
occurs
his
property.
I
His
house
is
about
ten
feet,
the
property
line,
that's
the
requirement
that
looks
like
to
me
when
I
I
bought
it
about
what
it
is.
You
can
judge
for
yourself
in
the
photograph
I
fail
to
understand
how,
when
he
has
a
three-story
building-
and
he
has
he
is-
our
garage
will
be
five
times
further
away
than
his
houses
to
our
property
line.
How
that
is
impacting
him
again
we're
here,
because
we've
tried
everything.
My
clients
have
tried
everything.
They
tried,
there's
other
things
they
try
with
the
city
that
did
not
proceed.
I
They
tried
to
vacate
the
easement
as
we've
talked
about
we're.
Here
is
a
point
of
last
resort.
They
just
want
to
build
a
garage.
They
want
to
build
a
garage
expansion.
You've
got
a
lot
of
things.
They
want
to
store
inside,
not
have
the
whether
they
want
to
be
able
to
people
say
well,
the
grunt
someone
said
well,
the
garage
is
big
enough.
I
The
problem
is
where
the
posts
are
where
the
structure
is
for
the
garage
today,
you
cannot
easily
get
two
cars
in
the
garage,
so
it's
that
as
well
as
the
ability
to
store
items
than
any
normal
family
would
have
and
would
like
to
store
in
a
garage
and
not
have
it
sit
outside.
You
showed
I
think
that
we've
met
the
variance
criteria.
The
garage
expansion
will
not
be
in
the
shared
driveway.
It
will
not
encroach
in
that
at
all
and
it
will
not
encroach
into
the
easement
at
all.
I
It
will
be
outside
of
both
of
those.
We
will
have
a
setback
that
is
50
feet
from
our
property
line
on
the
east
26
feet
on
the
north,
great
separation
of
distances
between
the
new
garage
and
both
of
our
neighbors,
and
we
respectfully
requests
your
approval.
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
if
you
like.
Okay,
thank
you.
K
Thank
You
mr.
chairman,
and
only
because
my
property
seems
to
be
under
attack,
I,
understand
the
emotions
and
and
and
that
you
got
a
present
it
all
in
your
best
light.
Mr.
apini,
but
I
don't
have
a
three-story
house.
I
have
a
one-story
house
by
code.
I
must
be
at
least
11
feet
if
I
want
to
get
decent
insurance.
I
should
be
a
13
feet,
so
my
ground
level
is
at
13
feet
and
I
have
a
one-story
house
and
underneath
it,
I
have
$26,000
worth
fill
dirt.
So
it
is
not
a
three-story
house,
as
mr.
K
apini
would
like.
He
lead
you
to
believe.
It's
a
one-story
house
built
to
code
at
the
flood
level
and
I
also
appreciate
that
our
neighbors
tried
everything
look.
This
is
a
variance
application,
it's
not
an
entitlement!
So
the
argument
that
we've
tried
everything
and
now
we
got
to
get
it
this
just
not
right.
Thank
You.
N
N
It
doesn't
display
the
impact
that
an
additional
it's
the
up
but
I
have
a
problem
with
not
the
out
I
have
no
problem
with
you
out,
go
out
all
you
want
it's
the
up
from
the
north
side
of
my
home,
where
my
wife's
death
sits
where
she
spends
lots
of
time
30
hours
a
week.
She
can
see
clear
by
you
over
the
roof
of
this
garage.
The
addition
of
an
extension
on
that
garage
will
block
that
view.
That's
my
only
opposition.
Okay,.
A
K
With
driving
in
and
out
I'm,
not
as
satisfied
with
the
state
of
the
driveway,
because
there
have
been
encroachment
which
again,
I
I
must
point
out,
have
nothing
to
do
with
this
variance
application
that
those
encroachments
are
completely
different
subject
matter
and
I
do
not
want
to
burden
my
neighbors
in
this
forum
with
that
issue.
Okay,.
F
D
F
A
F
F
F
D
That's
not
the
application.
That's
before
this
board,
that's
what
I
was
asking
to
clarify
mr.
apini
earlier.
This
is
an
application
for
a
variance
from
the
code,
as
it's
been
determined
by
the
building
official
to
deny
their
permit
for
what
they
were
looking
to
do
they
needed
to
get
a
variance
for
it.
Okay,.
A
E
A
K
Not
I've
not
commented
at
all.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
we
had
an
agreement
that,
after
the
completion
of
my
construction,
that
I
would
contact
my
neighbors,
Council
I
think
at
the
time
it
was
mr.
Koz
curtis
and
that
we
would
then
negotiate
a
possible
read
desig
nation
of
off
the
drive.
I
have
done
so
and
there's
written
correspondence
on
that.
I
was
advised
by
mr.
Koz
Kudus.
First
that
my
neighbors
were
out
of
town.
K
A
K
A
L
L
I
L
I
I
I
I
L
L
Fact
that
technically
we're
not
supposed
to
really
we're
technically
not
supposed
to
if
they
put
purple
on
their
house,
we're
not
supposed
to
contemplate
that
we're
talking
about
that
one
address,
so
we're
not
really
comparing
they
got
this.
They
didn't
get
this.
It's
we're
looking
unique
to
the
property
right.
We.
I
I
F
I
The
first
sketch
that
I
showed
you
of
our
property
does
stop
at
our
North
property
line,
which
is
a
zellers
southern
property
line.
The
point
I
was
the
only
point
I
was
trying
to
make
was
in
the
Zeller
situation.
The
setback
that
was
established
was
25
feet
from
the
East
property
line.
There
is
the
first
25
feet
from
that.
I
East
property
line
is
the
easement
on
the
sellers
property,
so
they
were
not
required
to
start
the
setback
measurement
on
the
inside
edge
of
that
easement
and
then
go
to
the
west,
but
our
client
is
being
required.
We
have
a
50
foot
easement,
which
we
knew.
We
understand
I'm,
not
trying
to
say
there's.
You
know
that
was
a
problem,
but
instead
of
saying
that
we
get
to
count
the
setback
starting
on
the
property
line,
we
have
to
go
to
the
inside
edge
of
the
easement.
I
That's
the
only
point
I
was
making
is
that
the
city
is
treating
two
houses
exactly
next
to
each
other,
with
the
exact
same
easement
in
two
totally
different
ways
in
one
the
Zeller
property
they
get
to
use
the
easement
and
count
that
towards
their
setback.
In
our
case,
we
do
not,
and
as
if
we
are
approved
tonight,
our
request
is
to
have
the
garage
will
be
50
feet
from
our
East
property
line,
50
feet
and
60
feet
away
from
our
nearest
neighbor.
Mr.
L
H
H
L
L
I
A
A
I
To
just
a
one-story
structure
again
as
Miss
Iguala
stated,
that's
not
part
of
it.
We
meet
the
height
requirement,
we're
not
asking
for
any
variance
to
the
height.
We
need
that
additional
space,
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
for
storage
and,
quite
frankly,
I
just
don't
know
how
somebody
who
has
a
whether
you
call
it
you
want
to
call
two-story
or
three
storey
or
whatever
you
call
it.
You
can
look
at
those
photos
and
they
are
two
and
three
times
do.
I
D
A
A
I
It's
basically
gonna
be
two
and
a
half
wide
more
or
less
that
you
can
get
to
suck
cars
in
there
and
then
the
second
floor.
That's
how
it
gets
to
the
total
square
footage.
It's
it's,
not
a
four
car
garage
by
any
stretch
of
imagination.
The
other
thing
we're
dealing
with
and
I
didn't
really
talk
about
it
cuz.
It's
not
part
of
the
application,
we're
in
the
flood
zone
and
we
have
a
one-story
house
that
is
not
raised
up
and
it
does
not
have
any
fill.
I
So
we
we
have
all
of
y'all
know
how
that
works.
So,
there's
only
a
certain
amount
of
improvement
you
can
do
before
you
trigger
full
compliance,
so
we're
trying
to
incremental
II
stay
within
the
50%
rule
for
FEMA
put
the
garage
where
it
should
get
some
space
for
some
storage
and
keep
all
of
our
neighbors
happy.
And
now
that's
really
Holly.
That's
really
all
I
want
to
do.
Did.
D
H
A
O
A
O
G
H
G
A
J
I
The
width
of
the
door
itself,
as
you
know,
in
a
garage
you
have
a
structure
and
then
you
have
the
width
of
the
door
at
the
garage
door
itself.
That's
part
of
the
problem.
In
addition,
they
want
the
space
to
be
able
to
move
two
cars
in
without
having
to
inch
in
slowly
and
make
sure
they
don't
hit
the
other
car.
So.
G
G
J
Me
so
my
one
of
the
things
that
you
also
made
mention
about
was
that
they're
not
having
use
of
the
reasonable
use
of
the
garage
and
in
this
analysis,
there's
no
place
that
it
really
says
that
it
says
reasonable
use
of
the
land.
So
I
was
kind
of
curious.
Why?
You
would
present
that
as
reasonable
use
of
the
garage,
their
homes,
that
don't
have
garages
at
all
and
I'm
I'm,
not
saying
anything
on
how
I
would
vote
or
not
I'm.
Just
asking
these
questions
just
to
see
how
you're
gonna
respond
to
it.
I
I
appreciate
the
distinction.
Clearly,
the
use
of
the
land
in
this
case
is
for
red,
single-family
residential
most
of
the
homes
right
in
this
immediate
area
do
have
garages,
so
the
garages
to
me
a
part
and
parcel
of
the
use
of
that
property,
the
use
of
that
land
and
again
for
them,
it's
the
ability
to
get
a
couple
of
cars
in
there
and
the
ability
to
store
the
you
know
the
waterfront
vehicles
that
they
have.
They
have
sports
equipment
for
other
sports.
J
I
J
Okay,
I
had
one
other
question
that
was
brought
up
and
I
know
we
don't
speak
about
height,
because
that's
not
what
the
variance
is
about
and
before
I
heard
that
I
had
no
issue
with
section
5
I
thought
that
you
did
meet
criteria
but
again
when
it
was
brought
up
about
that
it
said,
would
would
it
be
affected
by
approval
of
this
variance,
which
is
the
the
gentleman's
name
whose
wife
sits
across
from
it?
It
would
affect
their
view
for
that
matter,
to
be
a
two-story
structure
over
there.
D
I
M
I
I
I
said:
well,
you
had
a
one-story
before
if
you
did
approve
the
variance,
so
we
could
get
the
garage,
then
maybe
we'll
be
back
here
for
a
new
two-story
house,
but
and
and
quite
frankly,
they
you
know
either
the
D
nurse
or
someone
else
could
do
that
and
they
could
meet
all
the
setbacks
and
there
would
not
be
a
variance,
and
there
would
be
no
discussion
with
with
you
guys
about
of
you,
because
you
met
all
the
setbacks.
Good.
J
Answer,
thank
you.
My
other
big
question
that
I'm
trying
to
get
through
is
the
when
it
was
purchased,
because
we
do
have
many
people
come
for
this
board
to
ask
about
variances
prior
to
purchase
whether
it's
new
construction,
whether
it's
there,
you
know,
add
ons
down
the
road.
So
the
issue
that
I
have
in
my
head
is
that
this
property
was
known
to
have
issues
for
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
with
this,
whether
you
want
to
call
it
or
right
away,
you're
a
easement.
I
Have
the
deed
I'm
happy
to
present
that
into
evidence,
if
you
like
the
deed
and
I'll,
just
read
it?
It's
a
general
warranty
deed
made
on
August
26
2016
as
earnest
crevel
own,
a
single
man
as
the
seller,
granting
it
selling
it
to
Victor,
Randolph
and
Sally
Deena.
Of
course,
my
clients
here
today,
that's
August
2016,
as
I
said
before.
These
are
smart
folks,
they
understood
and
they
investigated
they
had
a
survey,
the
property
they
had
the
minor
subdivision.
I
They
knew
that
they
had
a
50-foot
easement
and
they
knew
that
they
had
a
driveway
that
they
had
to
share
and
keep
open
for
the
property
to
the
north.
That
is
their
no
dispute
about
that.
They
have
no
objection
to
any
of
that.
They
bought
that,
knowing
that
the
only
dispute
they
have
is
that
the
city
decided
to
set
the
measurement
to
start
the
measurement
of
the
setback,
not
at
the
East
property
line,
where
everybody
else
measures
it
from,
but
from
the
inside
edge
from
that
50
at
the
50
foot
mark.
I
A
M
O
I
Not
the
driveway
itself
they're
in
agreement
with
that
they
understand
it.
They
know
they
have
to
maintain
it
with
the
sellers.
They
understand.
All
that
the
point
is
that
instead
of
you
know
and
when
they
bought
it
did
they
know
all
the
improvements
they
were
gonna
make
I'm
sure
they
they
didn't
like
most
of
us,
it's
an
incremental
thing,
but
they
never
anticipated
that
the
setback
would
be
measured
from
the
inside
at
the
starting
of
50
feet
inside
their
property
everywhere
else.
You
start
at
zero.
You
start
the
edge
of
the
property.
J
If
then,
if
with
that
being
said,
and
this
question
is
for
you
and
then
again
for
staff
afterwards
in
area
1,
it
says
staff
has
researched
this
lot
split
and
has
not
been
able
to
identify
any
written
evidence
that
the
setback
standard
should
not
be
followed.
So
again
as
much
as
I,
like
your
presentation
and
I'd
like
to
go
with
what
you're
presenting
to
me,
how
is
it
that
staff
can
make
that
statement?
Why.
I
C
C
If
you
claim
that
it's
an
easement
and
then
you
said
that
the
city
had
to
determine
it
right
away,
because
that
was
necessary
to
create
that
entity
right,
but
right
away,
a
strip
of
land
acquired
by
dedication,
proscription
condemnation
or
purchase
for
use
as
a
road,
crosswalk,
railroad
line,
electric
transmission
line
or
gas
pipe
or
similar
use.
Is
the
city
going
to
use
any
of
these
things
on
that
quote-unquote
right
away?
Or
was
it
only
done
on
paper
just
so
that
they
could
create
the
entity
I.
E
C
The
city
is
saying
that
they
do
not
meet
all
the
review
criteria
and
since
the
main
review
criteria
is
based
on
the
measurement,
then
clearly
you
would
go
with
the
easement
definition,
since
the
right-of-way
is
a
joke.
Why
would
you
measure
it
as
a
right-of-way
when
that
is
clearly
not
what
it
is?
That's
thing.
D
The
interpretation
by
the
the
building
department
is
that
this
was
a
right
away.
Am
I
correct
in
saying
that,
okay,
that
this
is
a
right-of-way,
which
is
why
the
applicant
is
here
requesting
a
variance.
If
the
evidence
presented
meets
the
variance
criteria,
you
can
either
choose
to
grant
the
variance
or
if
it
doesn't,
you
can
deny
the
variance.
If
you
determine
that
there
isn't
a
right-of-way
that
it's
an
easement
which
you're
not
being
asked
to
do,
then
you
need
to
deny
the
variance,
because
the
variance
is
not
required.
D
So
then,
this
board
can't
even
hear
that,
because
there's
no
variance
needed
so
then
the
applicant
would
need
to
come
before
this
board
and
ask
for
an
interpretation
of
the
code
because
they're
appealing
a
decision
of
the
building
department,
which
is
why
I
asked
that
at
the
beginning,
which
mr.
apini
said
is
not
the
case
they're,
just
you're
asking
for
a
variance
and
that's.
D
I
What
I'm
saying
to
you
guys
is
that
we
are
asking
we're
asking
for
the
variance,
because,
like
I
said,
we
were
where
it
was
already
submitted.
The
public
hearing
had
been
noticed.
We
thought
we
would
just
go
ahead
and
proceed
that
way.
I
recognize
we
could
have
asked
for
interpretation,
but
I
clearly
thought
with
all
the
evidence
that
it
would
be
seen
that
it
is
the
variance
is
justified
and
I'm
asking
you
all
to
grant
the
variance,
because
it
is
justified.
D
H
D
I
I'm,
saying
is:
what's
unique
to
this
case
and
I
think
we've
demonstrated
it
based
on
a
property
immediately
to
the
north.
Is
that
in
this
case
not
only
do
I
have
an
unusual
shape
property.
It's
got
a
narrow
throat.
It's
got
an
unusual
shape,
but
in
this
case
uniquely,
the
city
is
requiring
this
setback
to
be
measured
from
a
different
place.
That
creates
a
physical
problem
with
where
the
only
place
to
put
the
garage
is
where
you've
demonstrated.
I
I
think
everyone
is
in
agreement
with
that,
but
the
physical
problem,
the
physical
uniqueness
to
this
site,
is
where
the
city
is
requiring
to
set
back
to
be
measured
from
so
we're
asking
for
a
0
foot
setback.
City
I,
don't
agree
with
the
city's
interpretation,
but
we're
asking
for
that
setback
as
a
0
foot
setback,
I.
A
Transportation
and
if
it's
transportation,
the
right
to
walk
or
drive
or
bicycle
across
it,
it's
called
a
right-of-way.
Some
easements
are
private
rights
away,
I
mean
some
private
rights,
some
easements
for
private
right
away
and
some
are
for
public
right
away.
This
is
an
ingress,
easement,
ingress,
egress
easement
come
in
and
go
out
private
right
of
way.
In
my
my
understanding,
I
think:
that's
what
the
the
document
state
it's
a
private
driveway
and
to
me
50
feet
is
too
much
necessarily
for
this.
A
For
two
houses
and
I
have
no
problem
with
the
staffs
interpretation
that
it
should
be
measured
from
the
near
edge
of
the
of
the
right-of-way
line.
Not
the
far
one,
but
I
also
have
a
problem
with
the
fact
that
it's
50
feet
wide.
In
fact,
the
TRC
I
believe
agreed
that
it
should
be.
It
could
be
25
feet,
one
and
apparently
the
neighbors
at
least
conditionally
I,
don't
want
to
put
words
in
his
mouth
are
agreeing
to
go
with
a
25
25
foot
ride
private
right-of-way
easement,
my
house,
another
45
years.
A
A
So
typically
it's
50/50
when
a
point
of
city
vacates
right
awake
to
one
side
and
half
to
the
other,
but
not
necessarily.
There
is
no
no
dedication,
of
course,
there's
no
vacation
or
another
example
is
if
a
buried
treasure
is
found
underneath
a
public
right-of-way.
The
buried
treasure
belongs
to
the
adjacent
property
owners
of
the
fee.
Simple
title:
you
have
fee
simple
title
generally
speaking
to
a
halfway
midpoint
of
the
right-of-way
subject
to
the
public's
right
to
go
across.
It
call
the
public
right-of-way.
In
this
case
again,
it's
a
private
and
the
state
definition.
A
I
just
pulled
the
state
statutory
definition
of
a
right-of-way
corroborates
that
right
away
means
land
in
which
the
city
owns
the
fee
or
as
an
easement
devoted
to
are
required
for
use
as
a
transportation
facility.
So
this
is
a
private
right-of-way,
easement
ingress/egress,
easement
I,
hope
that
clarifies
in
my
judgement,
hanging
with.
A
Just
I'm
trying
to
use
again
I
didn't
want
to
get
into
a
legal
argument,
but
just
from
common
experience.
This
is
what
we're
talking
about.
The
language
has
been
floating
about.
Is
it
an
easement
or
a
right
away?
A
right-of-way
I'm
trying
to
say
is
a
kind
of
an
easement
and
the
statutory
definition
of
the
state
corroborate.
A
For
this
particular
house
is
the
south
right
away.
Is
that
right
in
the
South
the
south
entrance
is
the
is
the
front
setback?
Is
there
from
the
south
entrance
now
I
haven't
been
in
that
house
in
30
years,
but
when
I
did
go
there,
that
was
always
the
front
door
was
the
front
of
the
house
and
and
mrs.
Tara
penny
did
state
that
that
the
front
yard
is
the
tonight
city.
Before
you
I'm
going
to
ask
the
staff
a
question
in
the
back
of
materials,
there
was
no
definition
for
a
front
yard.
A
I
A
E
Okay,
so
it's
the
front
yard,
so
it's
under
the
yard
section,
but
it's
getting
where
you're
trying
to
go
a
yard
extending
across
the
full
width
of
the
law
or
parcel
between
any
structure
and
the
front
lot
line
measure
perpendicular
to
the
structure
on
a
corner
lot,
the
front
yard
shall
be
determined
by
the
location
of
the
principal
entrance
to
and
the
primary
orientation
of,
the
structure,
which
is
most
office
facing
most
often
facing
the
narrowest
width
of
the
law.
Okay,.
A
E
Think
for
this,
the
for
their
determination
they
were
allowed
to
use
the
primary
orientation
of
the
house,
which
was
on
Riverside
I,
believe
that
was
their
their
front.
That
was
the
determination
for
their
front,
and
that
was
the
attempt
was
to
try
to
make
it
work
for
them
to
not
have
to
go
through
the
variance
process.
So
that's
where
that
orientation
difference
came
from
but
again
their
their
garage
is
on.
The
other
is
not
oriented
that
way.
Their
house
is
ran
that
way,
because
the
house
was
oriented
on
the
original
walk.
E
It
doesn't
affect
my
opinion
for
or
how
we're
measuring
this
they
need
variances,
based
on
the
way
we
have
interpreted
the
code,
it's
whether
it's
the
variants
that
are
requesting
in
this
case
is
the
rear
in
the
east
side
and
then
on
the
one
side
and
then
on
the
sidewalk.
On
the
other
side,
that's
I.
I
E
I
D
A
F
D
F
F
D
I
D
G
G
G
D
Are
not
appealing
the
interpretation
of
the
code
by
the
building
official,
which
means
it
is
considered
a
right-of-way
per
the
building
official.
If
they
were
to
appeal
the
decision,
then
this
board
could
determine
whether
or
not
it
was
considered
an
easement
or
a
right-of-way,
but
for
purposes
of
this
application,
the
building
official
has
determined
that
it
is
in
a
right
of
way.
Does
the
Apple.
L
D
D
C
D
D
E
I
I'll
be
I'll.
Try
to
be
brief.
The
reason
I
said
this
is
our
last
resort
is
because
for
over
two
years,
probably
three
years,
my
clients
have
been
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
to
build
the
garage.
First,
they
asked
the
city
they
saw.
It
was
an
easement
on
their
survey.
They
went
to
the
city
and
said:
well,
let's
can
we
vacate
this
easement?
You
have
the
letter
from
the
city
dated
May,
2017
I.
Think
the
year
is
saying
we
can't
vacate
it
because
the
city
has
no
interest
in
it.
That
was
round
one.
I
The
second
option
they
chose
I,
think
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
was
a
city
suggest
or
not,
but
anyway
they
said
okay.
Well,
let's
go
talk
to
our
neighbor
and
see.
If,
since
we
have
a
50-foot
easement,
my
clients
and
the
sellers
in
the
north
have
only
25,
maybe
we
could
just
make
it
25
the
whole
way,
and
that
way
the
city
where
the
city
wants
to
measure
it
from
we
wouldn't
need
a
variance.
We
would
need
it
on
the
north.
We
would
not
need
the
East
variance.
I
I
have
seen
correspondence
which
I
did
not
present,
because
it
is
private
between
my
clients
and
the
Zellers,
where
the
Zellers
had
made
it
abundantly
clear.
They
had
no
interest
in
cooperating
in
that
in
any
way
shape
or
form,
regardless
of
what
he
said
tonight,
not
really
sure
that
he
has
a
legitimate
change
of
mind.
But
my
point
is
for
two
years:
they
tried
that
option
with
their
neighbor
to
the
north.
That
is
why
we
are
here
now
again
they
filed
this
application
before
I
was
involved.
I
As
you
all
know,
we
came
to
you
in
March.
It
was
advertised
we
came
to
in
March,
I
mean
there
was
not
a
full
board,
so
we
did
request
and
you
all
were
gracious
enough
to
grant
us
a
variance
when
there
would
be
a
full
board
to
here,
because
there's
a
lot
of
complications.
This
and
I
think
you
all
will
probably
agree-
was
good
to
have
a
full
board.
So
do
we
want
to
start
over
and
withdraw
this
and
ask
for
an
interpretation?
No,
we
really
don't.
We
really
just
want
to
build
a
garage.
I
We
just
want
to
put
the
art
our
stuff
inside.
We
want
to
be
able
to
build
a
garage
where
we're
hampered
by
FEMA
as
well.
So
I
appreciate
your
idea.
You
know
if
I
had
been
involved
at
the
beginning,
we
might
have
pursued
that
to
start
off
with,
because
there's
a
lot
of
intellectual
arguments
to
that
that
I
think
the
board
you
know
might
be
interested
in,
but
you
know,
like
my
grandmother,
would
say
you
got
to
dance
with
the
guy
who
brung
ya,
we're
dancing
here
tonight
we
have
a
legitimate
request.
I
I
think
we've
showed
you
abundantly
that
we
meet
the
criteria.
The
staff
agrees
we
meet
two
of
them
and
the
one
that
they
don't
agree
we
met
is
because
of
their
interpretation
that
that
they're
saying
that
we
don't
meet
it
so
I
feel
like
it's
we're
in
this
catch-22
or
a
do
loop
and
we'll
go.
Do
something
else.
That's
why
we
are
truly
here
at
a
last
resort,
to
try
and
get
a
variance.
We
do
not
want
to
start
over
with
an
interpretation
that'll
be
at
least
two
months
from
now
before
we
can
get
back.
I
You
know
in
this
front
of
this
board
and
I
understand.
You
may
be
sympathetic
to
that.
But
again
we
have
provided
you
evidence
that
it
meets
all
five
of
the
criteria.
The
staff
says
we
meet
two
of
them
and
we
provided
evidence.
We
meet
the
other
three.
There
are
special
conditions
unique
to
the
site.
We
did
not
create
them
because
the
site
was
set
up
with
that
minor
subdivision
before
our
client
even
bought
it
and
I
have
this
the
deed
to
prove
it
in
the
last
one.
I
We
you
know,
we
also
meet
we're
not
gonna,
have
a
negative
effect
on
anybody's
property
value.
I,
don't
know
how
we
could,
when
our
building
will
be
further
away,
that
our
neighbors
are
to
us
so
Rob.
How
can
we
have
a
negative
effect
on
someone's
property
by
so
again,
we
believe
in
me
and
all
the
Katori
criteria
we
are
before
you
on
hands
and
knees
really
asking
for
your
help
to
be
able
to
simply
build
a
garage
just
like
everybody
else,
just
like
exactly
what
our
neighbors
on
the
north
and
east
have
and
exactly
like.
A
I
Came
down
during
the
weather,
and
it
was
brought
to
my
attention
late
last
week
by
mom,
missing
nice
and
I'm,
a
client
reposted
it.
They
frankly
thought
that
that
the
city
was
going
to
come
post,
a
new
one
with
the
new
date.
So
it
did
not
instantly
go
back
up
after
the
weather
hit
it,
but
it
was
reposted
I,
don't.
A
A
A
A
D
A
D
K
A
fair
chance,
thank
you.
I
only
have
one
sentence
and
it's
not
with
REO
with
respect
to
disappearance.
I
just
want
I
trust.
Mr.
apini
and
ma'am
I'd
like
to
remind
you
that
you're,
under
oath
and
and
and
I
would
hope
that
you've
refrained
from
making
a
statement
about
attorney-client
privilege.
He
say
information
that
you
supposedly
have
or
you
don't
have
we're
not
I.
Do
not
appreciate
the
that.
The
comments
that
you
made
about
me
and.
A
A
C
A
No,
the
Magana
calls
on
my
experience
as
a
special
master
for
the
property
appraiser's
office.
Property
appraiser's
office
must
consider
easements
at
affecting
the
property
value
so
and
they
do
if
they
know
about
it,
they
will
reduce
the
assessed
value
to
reflect
the
value
of
the
private
right-of-way
taken
and
in
my
experience
they
have
done
that.
The
answer
your
question
yes,
was.
A
F
D
A
A
A
Me
this
is
a
very
difficult
case.
Yes,
but
my
compliments
to
everybody
from
playing
by
the
rules
and
listening
and
being
fair
and
I
hope
that
we
will
all
leave
this
room
as
friends
and
neighbors
and
to
me
if
this
East
Side
is
the
side
yard
and
it's
going
to
be
23
feet
from
the
edge
of
the
private
driveway
that
would
meet
the
typical
exceed.
There
are
the
typical
side
right-of-way
line.