►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments August 24, 2016
Description
City of Tarpon Springs Board of Adjustments meeting August 24, 2016
A
A
B
D
E
E
A
F
F
G
B
F
D
Is
a
quasi
judicial
proceeding
where
the
Board
of
Adjustment
acts
in
a
quasi-judicial,
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity
at
a
quasi
judicial
hearing?
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
establish
criteria
contain
in
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
competent,
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.
D
By
the
same
token,
if
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
failed
to
meet
the
criteria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinance
and
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
against
the
applicant.
Are
there
any
parties
here
wishing
to
speak
or
give
testimony
this
evening?
If
you
could
please
stand
and
raise
your
right
hand
to
be
sworn
in
any
of
the
applicants
who
are
going
to
speak
or
anyone
speaking
on
their
behalf?
D
F
F
F
Well,
hopefully,
we'll
get
those
down
pretty
quickly.
Okay,
briefly,
my
name
is
her
belly
and
I'm
the
chairman,
and
if
you
do
speak
tonight,
please
silence
your
cell
phones
and
come
up
to
the
podium
and
state
your
name
and
your
address.
Please
first
item,
then,
is
very
introduces
side
and
rear
yard
setbacks
for
721
South
distant
Avenue
C.
The
applicant
is
present.
Can
we
have
the
staff
report?
Please?
Yes,.
A
This
application
is
to
authorize
a
two-part
variance
to
reduce
the
side
setback
to
6
feet,
11
inches
in
the
rear,
set
back
to
7
feet,
17
feet,
11
inches
to
allow
construction
of
an
attached
garage
in
the
residential
office
district.
The
subject
property
is
located
at
the
corner
of
distant
Avenue
in
mango
street.
The
property
is
currently
being
used
as
a
home.
However,
the
property
is
zoned
r,
ro
or
residential
office.
The
applicant
is
requesting
permission
to
construct
a
four
car
attached
garage.
A
The
applicant
would
like
to
keep
the
garage
in
line
with
the
existing
home,
which
is
the
reason
for
the
variance
the
applicant
is
asking
for
the
again
for
the
two-part
variance
the
request
for
the
side
yard
at
6
feet:
11
inches
the
rear
yard
at
17
feet
11
inches.
The
subject.
Property
consists
of
two
lots:
the
lots
are
regular
and
cheap.
The
subject
property
has
a
width
of
106
6666
feet
and
a
depth
of
132
42
feet
which
meet
the
minimum
dimensional
criteria
for
the
RO
district.
A
The
applicant
has
not
demonstrated
any
type
of
physical
hardship
with
the
property.
The
structure
is
currently
non-conforming.
The
setbacks
for
the
existing
structure
is
6
feet,
11
inches
and
the
hardship
created
is
due
to
the
applicants
desire
to
keep
the
proposed
garage
in
line
with
the
existing
home.
The
property
is
currently
developed
with
the
home
and
the
lot
is
of
sufficient
size
that
the
applicant
could
reconfigure
the
garage
and
place
it
on
the
property
without
the
need
of
a
variance
granting.
A
The
variance
would
confer
a
special
privilege
that
is
not
allowed
for
other
lands
and
buildings
or
structures
in
the
same
zoning
district.
Granting
the
variance
would
not
negatively
affect
the
property
values
in
the
air
or
creating
nuisance
notice
was
provided
to
property
owners
within
200
feet
of
the
subject
property.
The
legal
notice
was
published
in
the
Tampa
Bay
Times
staff
has
has.
This
is
actually
incorrect.
Staff
has
not
received
any
additional
letters
or
questions
from
anybody
in
the
neighborhood
again
the
findings
of
fact.
A
The
request
is
to
reduce
the
side,
yard
setback
to
6
feet,
11
inches
in
a
rear
yard
and
the
rear
yard
setback
to
17
feet,
11
inches
to
allow
construction
of
in
the
attached
garage.
There
is
no
physical
hardship
associated
with
the
requests.
The
lot
is
regular
and
shape
and
meets
the
minimum
dimensional
criterias
for
the
RO
district.
The
structure
is
non-conforming.
The
granting
of
the
variance
would
extend
a
special
privilege
to
the
applicant
granting
this
variance
would
not
hinder
the
character
of
the
existing
neighborhood
and
would
not
create
a
nuisance.
A
The
request
does
not
conform
to
the
general
intent
of
the
LDC
and
policies
of
the
Comprehensive
Plan,
and
therefore,
staff
recommends
denial
of
the
requested
variance
to
reduce
the
side
yard
setback
to
11
to
six
feet,
11
inches
and
the
rearguard
setback
to
17
feet,
11
inches
to
allow
construction
of
that
attached
garage.
This
request
does
not
meet
the
review
criteria
established
in
section
2
15.0
to
be,
and
to
15.0
2.5
the
LDC,
and
with
that
I
can
answer
any
questions
that
the
board
may
have.
Thank.
A
F
To
the
board
need
to
disclose
that
on
this
item,
I
have
kind
of
one
I
did
the
closing
for
this
property
back
when
the
applicant
purchased
it
I
represented
the
seller.
However,
not
the
purchaser
and
that's
my
only
connection
with
this
property,
as
in
my
private
capacity
I,
wasn't
somewhat
involved
the
city
attorney
back
when
it
was
Ruiz
owned.
I
may
want
to
say
a
few
things
about
that
at
the
appropriate
time,
but
is
the
applicant
the
audience?
Okay?
Mr.
Reynolds,
would
you
like
to
come
up
here
and
make
your
presentation
if
she
likes
her.
I
F
F
Some
40
years
ago,
this
property,
we
zerona,
believe
the
applicant
was
a
gentleman
by
the
name
of
Oscar
Oliver
and
you
wanted
to
make
some
sign
of
a
commercial
use
of
this
property
and
it's
on
the
corner
of
mango
street
and
distant
and
at
that
time
I
don't
see
any
old,
timers
here,
I
guess
that
makes
me
kind
of
old.
But
at
that
time
we
had
a
doctor
in
town,
dr.
Hercules
diamandis
and
his
mad
passion
bless.
F
D
F
To
consider
they're
just
my
have
a
question:
ultimately
it
kind
of
gets
to
it.
So
my
question
then,
is
since
this
corridor
is
in
our
comprehensive
plan.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
if
the
variance
is
granted
that
it's
not
going
to
have
any
effect
on
the
set
back
along
mango
street
is
accurate.
The
building
is
still
there.
The.
A
F
F
A
F
H
H
There
was
no
sidewalk,
there
was
a
tree
in
the
middle
of
the
road
and
I'm
not
sure
how
they
got
to
build
the
building
with
the
setbacks
at
that
time,
because,
like
I
said
there
was
no
sidewalk,
it
was
a
narrow
road
tree
in
the
middle
of
the
road
which
the
city
eventually
took
out.
So
mr.
Reynolds
is
asking
for
this.
Does
barents
in
the
set
back
to
put
his
garage
on
the
back
of
his
existed
building
the
back
of
the
building.
H
When
you
come
to
the
front
of
the
building.
Yes,
it
looks
a
little
bit
narrow
because
the
city
put
in
a
sidewalk.
It
didn't
look
that
way
when
the
building
was
built
before
the
side.
What
was
put
in
so
I'm
just
asking
that
you
evaluate
those
things,
because
it
seems
as
if
the
building
is
already
grandfathered
in
am
I
right,
maybe
not.
E
H
E
Do
have
a
question.
This
is
a
two-part
variance
and
I
understand
this
setback
for
the
6
feet,
11
inches,
because
that
would
line
up
with
the
building,
but
the
back
end
of
it,
where
they're
requesting
the
17
feet,
11
inch
barians
that
wouldn't
affect
the
look
or
the
line
of
the
building.
If
that
was
if
that
setback
was
not
granted
correct,.
A
F
K
C
F
F
The
you,
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
this
fence.
Variance
is
the
applicant
here.
Would
you
mind
if
we
took
the
wendy's
first
ahead
of
yours,
he's
got
a
because
I
think
it'd
be
a
little,
be
very
non
controversial
and
nothing
having
to
do
with
your
variance,
but
this
gentleman
has
to
go
back
to
manatee
county.
So
I
appreciate
it
very
much
so,
let's
move
on
then
to
and
number
six
has
been
withdrawn.
He's
stone.
F
A
Application
is
to
authorize
a
variance
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
to
25
feet
to
our
our
replacement
of
an
existing
fast-food
restaurant
in
the
highway
business
district.
The
subject
property
is
located
at
the
corner
of
tarpon
ave
and
US
highway
19
north.
According
to
the
properties
record,
the
structure
was
built
in
nineteen.
Seventy
six,
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
demolish
the
existing
structure,
employ
replace
it
with
a
slightly
smaller
facility
in
December
of
2015,
f
dot
required
a
portion
acquired
a
portion
of
the
existing
site
as
a
future.
A
Right
of
way
for
the
eventual
expansion
of
nineteen
upgrades
of
the
tarpon
ave,
US
19
intersection,
the
portion
of
the
property
required
by
F
thought
included
part
of
the
existing
landscape
buffer
parking
spaces
in
the
exit
for
the
drive
through
traffic
and
attempting
to
redevelop
the
restaurant
and
comply
with
the
required
setbacks
for
the
highway
business.
Zoning
district.
It
became
apparent
that
the
northeast
corner
of
the
building
wouldn't
need
a
variance
of
five
feet.
A
The
applicant
is
requesting
the
front
yard
setback
of
25
feet
for
the
northwest
corner
of
the
building
the
required
front
setback
in
the
highway
business
district
is
30
feet.
The
variances
do
the
acquisition
by
F
dot
of
right-of-way
at
the
at
this
time.
F
dot
has
no
immediate
plans
to
expand
US
19,
the
reduction
of
the
front
yard
setback
by
five
feet
should
have
no
impact
on
the
F
dots
future
plans.
A
The
existing
building
does
not
meet
the
setbacks
in
its
current
location,
and
the
applicant
is
actually
reducing
the
nonconformity
by
reducing
the
size
of
the
facility
and
relocating
the
building
on
I.
The
right
of
way
is
actually
provided
by
F
dot
or
was
provided
to
F
dot
by
a
previous
owner
at
that
time.
At
the
time
of
acquisition,
the
right
of
way
of
the
right
of
way
the
restaurant
was
for
sale
and
the
new
order
did.
The
new
owner
did
not
create
the
hardship
by
demolishing
the
building
and
relocating
a
smaller
structure
on
the
property.
A
The
applicant
is
reducing
that
nonconformity
and
the
new
and
the
new
owner
and
Wendy's
corporation
have
worked
with
staff
to
reduce
the
variance
request.
This
request
is
a
minimum
request
necessary
to
make
the
site
in
the
building
safe
to
see
to
make
the
site
and
building
function
safely
and
efficiently.
The
applicant
could
not
could
do
nothing
and
the
existing
non-conforming
structure
would
remain,
as
is
with
the
proposed
variance.
The
nonconformity
is
reduced
in
the
applicant,
will
provide
additional
space
between
the
structure
and
the
right
of
way
of
Tarpon
Avenue.
A
The
request
is
not
confer
a
special
privilege
on
the
applicant
who
simply
provides
for
a
safe,
more
efficient
site.
Granda
variance
will
allow
for
a
modern
facility
to
be
developed
on
site.
The
new
building
will
be
more
attractive
and
additional
landscaping
is
proposed
that
will
make
the
site
more
appealing.
The
proposed
improvements
will
enhance
the
area
and
not
create
a
nuisance.
Again,
notices
were
sent
out
to
property
owners
within
200
feet
of
the
subject.
Property
legal
notice
was
published
in
Tampa,
Bay
Times
and
the
property
was
posted,
staff
has
received.
Actually,
this
is
not
true.
A
Either
staff
did
not
receive
any
letters
in
support
or
in
objection
to
this
application.
There's
actually
been
no
correspondence
on
this
application.
With
that
findings,
a
factor
the
request
is
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
to
25
feet.
The
proposed
variance
Rises
of
the
physical
hardship
of
the
land,
in
this
case
f
dots
act
right
away.
Acquisition
complicates
the
development
of
this
site.
The
existing
building
is
non-conforming.
The
proposed
new
building
will
reduce
the
nonconformity.
The
request
is
to
a
minimum
variance
necessary
to
provide
for
safe
and
efficient
for
a
safe
and
efficient
site.
A
The
granting
of
the
variance
would
not
extend
a
special
special
privilege
to
the
applicant,
and
the
granting
of
this
variance
would
not
hinder
the
character
of
the
existing
neighborhood
would
not
create
a
nuisance.
The
request
does
conform
to
the
general
intent
of
the
LDC
and
the
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan
staff
recommends
approval
of
the
requested
variance
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
to
20
five
feet.
The
request
does
meet
the
review
criteria
established
in
sections
215
dot,
0
to
be
215,
dot,
0,
2,
dot,
5
of
the
land
development
code.
A
Is
correct?
We
we
are
allowed
to
grant
variances,
regardless
of
the
acquisition,
in
this
particular
case,
what
happens
with
the
acquisitions
that
changes
their
property
line
boundary
as
a
result
of
that
change
in
property
line
boundary.
That's
what
necessitates
this
variance,
basically,
when
they
acquired
the
additional
right
away,
which
is
shown
in
your
backup
they
acquired
a
large
portion
of
the
corner
of
that
property,
essentially
affecting
where
the
property
boundary
line
is
and
included
parking
it
included
on
the
buffer.
A
C
C
A
If
they,
when
they
come
in
for
any
renovations
or
remodels,
that'll
be
the
time
at
which
they
would
they
would
that,
with
that,
we
would
make
changes
to
those
buildings
really
what's
what's
causing.
This
is
Wendy's
wants
to
come
in
and
do
the
upgrades
to
the
building
if
they
didn't,
it
would
stay,
as
is
as
long
as
they
wanted
to
have
that
bill,
that
building
there.
Okay.
C
F
G
Oh,
that
would
be
my
name,
is
Dale
ream,
I
addresses
317,
50,
state
road,
64,
East,
Myakka,
City,
Florida
report,
251,
I,
work
for
infinity
engineering
group.
We
have
the
Wendy's
representative
here
and
we
have
some
nice
renderings
of
what
the
new
building
this
is
one
of
their
new
prototype
buildings.
It's
going
to
be
a
very
nice
building.
G
The
d-o-t
has
been
contacted
about
the
future
expansion
in
their
right
of
way.
That
is
not
even
on
their
five-year
plan.
At
this
point
in
time,
we
are
also
providing
some
very
nice
stormwater
upgrades
on
this
site,
currently
the
site
drains
on
to
the
d-o-t
right-of-way,
and
it's
kind
of
rough
looking
to
say
the
best.
We're
going
to
put
an
underground
storage
system
in
with
the
redevelopment
that
will
give
some
water
quality
and
I'll
give
some
attenuation
with
development.
Before.
F
G
G
G
A
Would
be
the
on
tarpon
Avenue,
the
westerly
the
westerly
entrance,
because
currently
the
building
is
what
is
very
close
to
the
right
of
way.
So
you
cannot
meet.
You
cannot
actually
go
into
the
front
of
the
building.
You
have
to
go
around
the
building
and
then
come
out
when
F
dot
cut
their
right
of
way
off
there.
They
basically
included
that
driveway
as
future
that
they
would
be
acquiring
that
portion
of
the
driveway.
A
That
would
actually
be
used
as
to
alleviate
some
of
the
intersection
congestion
that
can
happen
when
you
elevate
a
roadway
as
a
result,
they're
pushing
the
building
back,
which
is
reducing
the
non-conforming
that
they
already
have,
which
would
allow
for
that
circulation
that
currently
can't
go
along
the
front.
They
would
be
able
to
go
around
the
building,
come
back
and
then
come
right
back
out
the
same
access
point.
They
would
have
to
alter
the
access
point
cuz.
It's
not
wide
enough
right
now,
but
there
is
enough
room
for
their
them
to
do
that.
There
is.
A
Right
now
it's
one
way,
but
if
in
the
future
that
they
need
to
close
that
secondary
right
of
way,
they
would
basically
it
would
still
be
a
one-way
movement.
But
you
would
come
back
out
the
same
entrance
you
come
in,
so
the
only
right,
the
only
in
out
would
be
the
actual
entranceway
to
the
right
of
way.
A
They
great
now,
it
probably
is
not
sufficient
size,
because
it's
only
meant
for
that
in
that
that
entrance
turn
that
entrance
right
that
entrance
into
the
facility
right
now.
It's
not
meant
for
an
ingress
egress
it
that
there
is
enough
land
for
them
to
make
that
conversion.
They
would
just
have
to
come
back
and
do
that
modification
at
any
time
in
the
future
when
F
dot
requires
them
to
do
so.
It
would
be
part
of
their
negotiations
with
F
dot.
To
come
to
us
and
ask
for
that
modification.
It
would
not
come
to
this
board.
E
F
F
F
F
A
The
subject
property
is
located
in
the
r100
district,
the
minimum
front
yard
setback
is
25
feet.
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
6-foot
high
block
fence
to
be
placed
within
the
required
front
setback.
The
proposed
block
fence
is
located
10
feet
from
the
property
line
in
two
thousand.
The
property
owner
at
12
35
north
fort
outer
made
a
similar
request,
which
was
approved
by
the
Board
of
Adjustment
against
the
advice
of
the
city
staff.
A
The
subject
property
is
located
to
lot
south
of
12
35
north
florida
avenue
adjacent
the
adjacent
neighbor
at
12
27
north
florida
avenue
also
has
a
fence
within
the
required
front
setback.
However,
that
fence
is
permitted
at
the
four-foot
height,
which
meets
section
36
point
0203
be
of
the
land
development
code.
The
need
for
the
variance
is
not
a
function
of
the
physical
surroundings,
shape
topographical
additions
or
other
physical
or
environmental
conditions.
The
variance
is
requested
based
on
the
applicants,
desire
to
create
a
total
enclosure
of
their
property.
A
No
conditions
or
special
circumstances
exist
with
respect
to
this
request,
therefore,
none
have
been
self
created.
Strict
application
of
the
code
would
require
the
applicant
either
to
reduce
the
fence
or
of
the
height
of
the
wall
too.
Four
feet
within
the
front
yard
setback
25
feet
from
the
property
line
or
set
the
wall
back
21-point
21
25
feet
one
inch
from
the
front
property
line
at
the
height
of
6
feet
either
way.
Strict
application
would
not
deprive
reasonable
use
of
the
residential
property
measuring
approximately
120
foot
wide
x,
168
feet
deep.
A
The
home
is
SAT
back
approximately
320
feet
from
North
Florida
Avenue
at
least
one
variance
for
the
same
request
has
been
granted
in
the
immediate
area.
However,
the
r100
district
is
a
single-family
classification
with
a
minimum
lot
size
of
10,000
square
feet.
The
applicants
have
a
uniquely
large
property
which
minimizes
to
some
degree
the
magnitude
of
this
request
as
applied
for
a
majority
of
home
sites
in
the
r100
district.
Granting
this
request
would
confer
a
special
privilege,
if
approved,
the
variance
will
not
diminish
properties.
A
However,
the
complete
enclosure
of
non
estate
are
one
hundred
or
smaller,
wats,
create
a
perception
of
rampant
crime
and
is
not
conducive
to
curb
appeal
or
pedestrian.
Friendliness
notice
was
sent
to
the
property
owners
within
200
feet
of
the
subject
property.
A
legal
notice
was
published
in
Tampa,
Bay,
Times
and
staff
again
did
not
receive
anything
from
additional
property
owners.
There
was
actually
no
phone
calls
or
anything
on
this
particular
request.
The
request
is
to
increase
the
maximum
allowed
height
of
offense
within
the
front
yard,
setback
from
4
feet
to
6
feet.
A
The
need
for
the
variance
is
not
a
function
of
the
physical
surroundings,
shape
to
a
graphical
conditions
or
other
physical
or
environmental
conditions.
If
approved,
the
variance
will
not
diminish
it.
Property
values.
However,
the
complete
enclosure
of
non
st,
our
100
or
smaller
Lots,
creates
the
perception
of
rampant
crime
and
is
not
conducive
to
curb
appeal
or
pedestrian
friendliness.
The
granting
the
variance
would
not
extend
the
special
privilege
to
the
applicant.
The
granting
of
this
variance
would
not
hinder
the
character
of
the
existing
neighborhood
and
would
not
create
a
nuisance.
A
The
request
does
not
conform
to
the
in
general,
a
ton
of
the
LDC
and
the
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan
staff
recommends
denial
of
the
requested
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
height
of
a
block
fence
from
six
from
sorry
four
to
six
feet
within
the
front
yard
setback.
The
request
does
not
meet
the
review
criteria
established
in
section
2
15.0
to
be,
and
to
15
point
zero
point:
two
point:
five
of
the
LDC
in
the
event
that
this
board
decides
to
connect
to
recommend
approval
staff
has
a
couple
of
recommendations
here.
A
These
are
the
same
recommendations
that
were
made,
and
this
is
almost
a
verbatim
staff
report
that
was
written
in
the
previous
request.
It
was
done
that
because
staff
does
not
concur
with
this
recommendation
as
far
as
recommended
recommended
approval,
but
if
approval
is
warranted,
there
are
some
conditions
because
their
gates
and
things
that
are
going
to
be
proposed
as
part
of
this,
and
we
need
to
be
cognizant
of
those.
So
I
will
read
these
into
the
record.
D
Rider
staff
having
questions
as
to
them,
I
would
just
like
to
say,
though
there
are
minutes
from
a
meeting
from
this
board's
meeting
in
2004
a
prior
application.
That
is
not
to
be
considered
that
it's
not
relevant,
that
it's
not
confident
that
it's
not
substantial.
That
was
asked
to
be
put
in
there
on
my
understanding
by
the
applicant,
but
that
the
board
is
not
to
to
to
consider
any
of
that
or
the
other
application
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
this
property.
Thank.
A
F
L
L
L
F
L
F
For
the
record,
the
letter
state
that
they've
reviewed
the
drawings
and
the
setback
requested
I
have
no
objection
to
a
six-foot
block
fence
to
be
built
up.
The
subject.
Property
I'll
pass
this
down
to
our
secretary.
Please,
and
this
photograph
of
the
fence
will
all
next
door-
and
this
is
one
explained
with
this-
is
sir.
Yes,
go
back
to
the
podium
and.
L
Essentially,
this
is
the
columns
are
a
little
bit
taller
than
six
foot
and
I
understand
that
there
is
no
set
rule
for
the
height
of
the
columns.
It's
just
the
block
wall
itself,
so
we
placed
the
block
wall
at
6-foot.
Those
come
up
a
little
bit
higher
with
little
lighting
detail
under
each
one
of
the
caps
and
there'll
be
low,
voltage
lighting
detail
on
each
column.
So
this
is
pretty
much
what
we
have.
D
Again,
as
we've
discussed
before,
the
applicant
can
present
whatever
evidence
the
applicant
needs
to
present,
but
it's
up
to
the
law
that
determines
the
competent
substantial
evidence
and
I'm
here
just
to
advise
you
on
what
that
looks
like
and
just
to
remind
you
need
to
stick
to
the
criteria.
That's
in
your
code,
whether
or
not
you
group
that
or
not.
E
L
L
E
L
E
E
L
L
Know,
we've
always
wanted
to
have
a
fence
like
this.
It's
been
in
our
mind
since
we
purchased
the
house
20
years
ago.
It's
kind
of
been
a
thing
that
we've
been
thinking
of
her
a
long
time.
I
travel
back
to
Chicago
quite
often
and
I'm
gone
for
two
weeks
at
a
time,
and
my
wife
is
alone
so
her
being
at
the
top
of
the
hill
and
not
being
visible
from
any
other
location.
She
really
wants
the
security
as
well
will.
A
A
If
he's
asking
for
a
fence,
10
foot
off
his
property
I'm,
the
assumption
is
he's
going
to
a
completely
wall
wall
in
it's
not
just
he's
asking
for
that
wall
he's
asking
for
the
fence
of
six
feet
and
then
that
would
go
beyond
to
whatever
he
does
in
the
backyard.
As
long
as
it's
consistent
with
the
maximum
of
six
feet,
he's
allowed
to
do
that
by
right.
I
have.
L
So,
on
the
plat
of
survey
that
I
just
provided
to
you
shows
the
the
property
line,
which
is
25
feet
back
from
edge
of
pavement.
What
we're
requesting
is
another
10
feet
added
on
to
that
which
essentially
is
37
feet
the
same
as
1235
has
at
this
point
so
again
that
that
puts
us
37b
feedback
from
the
road
which
gives
plenty
of
room
for
right
away
to
be
off
of
the
right
away
of
the
street,
and
it's
set
back
far
enough.
That
did
you
know
lines
up
with
the
other
fence.
That's
just
north
of
us.
L
J
L
Know
I
I
have
had
some
instances
where
we
have
people
drive
up
to
the
house
anywhere
from
8am
till
8pm
at
night
asking
if
we
want
trees
trimmed
if
we
want
and
he
work
done
around
the
yard.
She
feels
very
uncomfortable.
You
know
answering
the
door,
so
yeah
we've
had,
and
that
happens
probably
a
maybe
every
other
week
we
get
somebody
coming
up
and
a
pickup
truck
and
have.
D
F
F
F
F
F
We
had
a
similar
application
a
few
months
ago
and
it
was
discussed
that
it
perhaps
a
six-foot
fence
is
less
secure
than
a
four-foot
fence,
because
people
wants
to
get
over
that
6-foot
fence
there
more
or
less
in
visible
from
the
street
and
I'd
like
to
know
what
your
comments
are
about
that
and
pass.
The
board
can
pick
up
on
that
I'm.
F
L
Bit
now
they
can
hide
just
as
easily
behind
a
four-foot
fence
they
crouch
down,
they
can
do
whatever
they
have
to
do.
I
mean
I'm,
simply
asking
you
know
the
board
to
allow
us
to
have
the
same
variance
that
our
neighbors
have
we're
not
asking
to
be
we're
not
asking
for
a
zero
setback,
but
I,
certainly
to
go
six
foot
and
go
50
feet
into
my
property
when
I
have
350
foot
of
driveway
to
my
house,
I,
don't
think
it's
too
much
to
ask
for.
F
Heather
at
the
last
variance,
we
talked
about
the
possibility
of
building
up
the
base
of
the
fence.
Remember
that
you
can
lope,
you
can
raise
the
ground
so
that
you
can
have
the
wall
being
a
four
foot
wall
and
still
have
a
six-foot
hike
to
follow
I'm
saying
we
talked
about
that
and
it
was
set.
You
said
it
was
okay
to
do
that.
They
explained
myself.
A
The
the
fence
is
taken
from
whatever
the
ground
level
is
so
depending
upon
where
something
is
located,
determines
whether
or
not
you
can
build
a
berm
or
you
can
add,
additional
fill
to
a
piece
of
property.
That's
something
that
the
building
code,
it's
actually
the
float
code
determines
where
in
the
city
you
can
add,
fill
to
a
site
because
otherwise,
if
you
add
too
much
salt
to
a
site,
you
have
to
compensate
for
that
additional
fill
elsewhere
as
a
result
of
flooding
issues
that
we
have.
A
L
The
only
other
thing
that
I
might
say
is
that
you
know
even
with
the
four-foot
fence.
You
know
there
I
know
that
there
was
some
conditions
with
the
other
approval
about
the
gate.
I,
don't
know
what
the
difference
is
between
not
obstructing
the
right
away.
By
having
25
feet
to
the
fence
and
being
at
zero
setback
or
being
at
37
feet,
I
I
would
think
at
37
feet.
You've
got
a
much
greater
ability
to
have
the
breast
to
get
your
vehicles
or
vehicle
and
trailer
off
the
road.
L
F
A
A
If
he
goes
to
25
feet
and
one
inch,
ok,
he
can
build
a
six-foot
fence
because
he's
outside
what's
considered
the
front
yard
setback,
he
may
still
be
in
his,
in
fact
his
front
yard,
because
his
front
yard
is
320
feet
from
the
from
the
actual
property
line,
but
he
would
not
be
in
what
the
city
has
established
in
our
100
as
the
front
yard.
So,
yes,
he
could
build
a
four-foot
fence
on
property
line,
0
up
to
property
line
2025
and
then
anything
beyond
25.
A
A
Would
apply
to
any
fence
that
is
greater
than
4
feet
in
the
front
yard?
Doesn't
matter
the
any
type
of
fence
that
you
wouldn't
construct
in
the
front
yard
cannot
be
higher
than
4
feet.
We
considered
a
structure
and
therefore
it
must
meet
the
SAT
bag
outside
of
the
front
yard.
Setback
you
can
be
higher
can
go
up
to
6
feet,
which
is
the
maximum
for
residential
property.
F
Another
question
form
is
popular
Earl,
real
choosing.
If
this
proposed
variance
application
is
granted-
and
it's
set
back
further
than
the
wall-
that's
two
doors
down,
they
would
have
kind
of
a
sawtooth
appearance.
You
think,
would
you
care
to
discuss
that
a
little
bit?
No,
there
wouldn't
be
on
the
same
plane.
F
A
Really
doesn't
matter
if
it's
on
the
same
plane
anyway,
there's
a
property
between
the
adjacent
property
does
not
have
a
6-foot
high
fence,
so
you're
going
to
have
a
6-foot
high
fence,
a
four-foot,
high
fence
and
a
6-foot
high
fence.
If
you
approve
this
variance,
how
that
how
that
visually
is
going
to
play
out
would
be
no
different
than
if
the
distance
from
where
it
is
measured
from
the
property
line
is
different.
A
The
staff
is
making
the
recommendations
if
you
choose
to
go
forward
based
on
what
was
previously
approved,
because
that
is
what's
consistent
with
what
actions
have
been
taken
here
now.
That
does
not
mean
staff
supports
this,
because
staff
clearly
does
not
support
this.
Clearly,
staff
has
not
supported
any
type
of
application
for
a
fence
and
increase
of
offense
at
a
front
yard.
C
F
C
C
This
woman
and
she
had
similar
concerns,
and
it's
just
unfortunate
that
the
property
next
door
to
you
was
granted
that
yes,
so
that
is
really
it's
very
disturbing,
because
to
me
that
that
would
be
how
I
would
go
all
right,
but
to
follow
this
code.
I,
don't
believe
that
I
can
do
that
and
that's
where
I'm
torn
because
it
to
me
you
should
be
allowed
to
do
that,
and
the
person
on
the.
C
L
Yes,
I
do
understand
and
I
think
that
those
properties
are
a
little
different
than
the
average
property
in
tarpon
being
so
long.
The
property,
if
you
look
at
the
plat,
is
seven
hundred
some-odd
feet
long.
Oh
you're
done
it.
It's
quite
sizable
and
I
do
pay
a
lot
of
taxes
and
I
would
like
to
have
the
ability
to
what
somebody
else
has
on
my
block
and
that's
all
I'm
asking
the
board
for
I've
got
letters
from
all
my
neighbors.
They
do
not
object
to
it,
and
I
would
hope
that
the
board
would
consider
that.
L
D
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
say
just
for
your
consideration,
regardless
of
what
you
guys
have
ever
done
with
any
other
application.
That's
come
before
you
and
I
understand
the
application
you're
talking
about,
but
regardless
of
that,
the
application
that
you
have
before
you
with
materials
you
have
before
you
and
the
criteria
you
have
before
you
that's
all
you're
to
consider
today.
What
you've
done
in
the
past
is
not
indicative
of
what
you
can
do
in
the
future.
It.
J
J
L
Well,
then,
let
me
go
down
another
Road.
Let
me
talk
about
some
of
the
places
like
tarpon
key,
that
has
a
foot
that
fence
that's
almost
16
feet
when
you're
driving
down
along
the
road
there
and
the
setback
is
only
about
18
feet
from
the
road.
Okay,
let
me
talk
about
some
of
the
other
developments
that
are
farther
down
by
klosterman
that
have
six
foot
fences
and
they're
at
zero
said
back
there
right
up
against
the
side
log.
What
to
me?
What's
the
difference?
There's
homes
back
there
as
well.
L
A
I'm
only
asking
the
board
to
give
me
the
the
ability
to
put
a
fence
up.
That
has
been
done
once
on
my
block
already,
and
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
will
decide
in
the
future
to
ask
for
the
same
thing.
But
I
would
just
ask
the
board
that
to
consider
all
my
letters
and
my
evidence
that
I
be
approved,
I.
C
D
Is
not
what
I
said.
I
said
that
the
decision
that
they
made
and
that
is
not
to
be
taken
as
competent,
substantial
evidence
for
this
application.
What
those
board
has
previously
either
approved
or
denied
in
the
past,
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
application.
That's
before
you
compared
to
the
criteria
you
have
before
you,
so,
regardless
of
how
similar
or
dissimilar
or
whatnot
that
the
criteria
is
based
on
this
individual
platted
property.
With
this
individual
variants,
every
variance
that
comes
before
the
sport
is
exactly
I
is
individualized.
It
is
that
application
before
you.
D
D
What
you
do
on
this
application
doesn't
set
a
precedent
for
what
you
do
in
the
future
on
any
other
applications
that
come
before
you,
because
the
variance
is
specific
to
the
property
that
you
are
considering
now
not
to
all
fences
and
tarpon
are
all
fences
in
the
zoning
district
or
all
fences
on
this
block,
where
all
garages
are
all
whatever
it
is
this
application
this
property,
this
specific
piece
of
property
before
so
whether
or
not
they
use
competence,
substantial
evidence?
What
I
said
was
that
those
that
decision
is
not
relevant
or
competent.
D
L
D
D
D
Whatever
the
case
may
be,
whatever
the
decision
was
made
and
based
on
whatever
it
was
made
on
before,
is
not
relevant
to
your
application
and
same
if
you
have
a
neighbor
that
comes
in
next
week
or
twelve,
not
next
week,
but
next
month
and
says,
I
want
to
build
the
same
thing.
They
may
have
different
conditions
on
their
property
and
and
it's
going
to
be
a
whole
different
ballgame.
So
that's
the
way
that
the
law
I
mean
like
I,
said
I'm,
always
the.
L
D
Did
not
say
that
those
are
two
separate
things
if
someone
to
work,
if
you
were
to
regardless
of
this
application,
any
application
that
comes
before
the
board.
If
you
approve
one
application,
somebody
comes
a
year
later
and
you
deny
that
application
and
somebody
in
the
public
thinks
that
one
of
those
two
decisions
was
wrong.
You
know
and
they're
in
there
an
affected
party.
You
know
they
can
make
us
think
about
it
and
insert
themselves
into
it,
provided
that
there's
time
limits
for
that
and
and
and
you
know,
cause
some
problems.
So
what.
C
D
I
mean
you
get
that
all
the
time
in
all
kinds
of
cities.
You
know,
there's
litigation
all
up
and
down.
Pinellas
County
for
these
types
of
things
were
one
neighbor
gets
something
one
neighbor
doesn't
and
one
neighbor
says:
well,
the
city
shouldn't
have
done
that,
and
so
they
insert
themselves.
They
take
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
board,
and
then
it
gets
litigated
in
court.
It's
protracted
litigation
for
years
and
years
and
at
the
end
of
the
result,
it's
the
city
has
spent
money.
D
The
parties
have
spent
money
and,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
decision
is
whatever
the
decision
it.
So
you
know,
regardless
of
all
that,
your
decision
again,
it
should
be
based
on
the
criteria
which
I
understand
y'all
do
not
necessarily
agree
with,
but
it
should
be
based
on
the
criteria,
which
is
the
law
and
based
on
the
competent
substantial
evidence.
Before
you
specific
to
this
application
and-
and
you
know,
y'all
make
the
decision
you
need
to
make,
but
it
needs
to
be
based
on
that.
F
One
variance
has
been
granted
and
this
is
going
to
be
much
further
away.
The
proposal
is
much
further
away
from
the
street
line
in
the
one
before
the
one
before
has
had
some
peep
holes
at
the
top,
so
it
doesn't
look
like
it's
a
six-foot
barricade
with
the
Fort
Knox
type
appearance
he's
willing
to
to
be
compatible
with
that
might
help
a
little
bit.
F
It's
going
to
have
a
little
bit
of
a
sawtooth.
If
you
look
at
West
tarpon
Avenue
how
the
buildings
are
set
back
differently,
some
buildings
have
bagged
15
feet,
20
feet.
One
building
encroaches
into
the
right
away.
The
motel
so
but
you're
used
to
it
ya,
see
I'm
talking
about
that.
The
West
tarpon
Avenue,
where
the
buildings
are
all
set
back
differently,
we're
used
to
it.
You
live
with
it.
This
is
a
dead
end
street
with
very
little
traffic.
I
live
around
the
corner
and
I'm.
Sorry,
that's
evidence
left
up.
I'm.
F
It's
like
I'm
listening
to
you
so,
but
let's
just
shall
we
just
say
that
there's
been
no
objections
that
I've
been
aware
of
to
the
wall.
That's
there
now
and
this
gentleman
is
willing
to
build
much
further
in.
He
can
also
bill
from
what
I'm
hearing
he
could
build
a
four-foot
fence
in
compliance
with
the
code
out
of
variance
and
then
go
in
some
30
or
40
feet
and
build
a
6
foot
wall
and
have
and
do
that
without
a
variance
as
well.
F
J
Just
want
to
say
I
just
can't
see
that
I
I
appreciate
that
you
want
to
have
a
six-foot
fence
wall,
but
I
just
don't
see
personally
the
setting
precedents,
the
difference
between
the
four
and
six,
because
I
guess
we're
not
allowed
to
discuss
the
security
end
of
it.
So
I
can't
really
consider
that
which
we've
also
discussed
security,
and
that
is
not
even
a
case.
You
know
that's
why
I'm
just
answering
you,
because
you'd
said
you
were
away
in
Chicago
and
you're.
J
F
L
J
G
L
F
L
K
My
name
is
Liana
hanson,
I
am
the
wife
of
Phil
Hansen.
My
comment
is
that
I'm
very
high
up
on
a
hill
and
the
other
properties
are
much
closer
to
the
road.
So
if
there
was
an
issue,
if
somebody
were
to
come
in
with
a
truck
to
try
to
move
furniture
or
steal
anything
from
the
place,
the
neighbors
can
see
it
easily.
I
am
so
high
up
on
the
hill
that
you
can.
K
You
could
drive
up
there
and
you
could
have
your
car
and
Rob
my
entire
place
and
take
everything
you
want
before
a
neighbor
would
even
notice
that
there
are
cars
or
robbers
up
there.
Everyone
in
the
neighborhood
there
is
almost
zero
variants
to
the
walk
to
the
place.
So
when
I
come
by
I
think
if
I
see
a
big
moving,
truck
or
I
see
somebody
trying
to
take
something
I
would
call
the
police
right
awake
we're
on
that
high.
K
L
C
A
F
E
B
F
C
F
L
A
D
I
do
at
our
special
meeting.
I
know
that
we
had
talked
about,
and
it
kind
of
came
up
tonight
to
you
about
some
of
the
repercussions.
What
happens
when
you
know
you
don't
necessarily
stick
to
the
criteria,
and
you
know
I
know,
there's
some
personal
concerns
there
and
practical
concerns
as
well,
and
there
was
a
recent
Pinellas
Court
Sixth
Circuit
decision
and
the
the
courts
at
in
its
appellate
position.
D
Instead
of
its
trial
position
and
handed
down
a
16.5
million
dollar
judgment
to
pinellas
county
and
the
specific
reason,
the
end-all-be-all
reason
why
that
happened
is
because
the
Pinellas
planning
council
did
not
stick
to
the
criteria
verbatim
right
out
of
the
case
they
chose
they.
It
went
up
on
appeal.
The
Port
Said
remanded
back
down,
consult
your
criteria
and
they
didn't
they
listen
to
public
opinion.
The
public
was
outraged.
They
didn't
want
the
development
to
go
through.
D
They
didn't
want
any
of
anything
to
happen
and,
and
they
listened
to
the
court
of
public
opinion,
it
went
back
up
on
appeal
and
the
court
said
you
can't
do
that
and
and
and
said
again,
you
need
to
stick
to
the
criteria
and
slap
the
county
with
16.5
million
dollars.
So,
while
you
know
tarpon
springs
is
likely
not
to
and
I
can't
say
that
there
may
very
well
be
a
case
that
large
developer
comes
in
and
you
know
this
board
denies
variance
and
they
get
all
upset
about
it,
and
then
they
decide
to
seek
action.
D
But
as
long
as
you
know,
it's
just
one
example.
As
long
as
you
guys
stick
to
the
criteria
which
I
know
is
difficult
and-
and
you
know
sometimes
can
impose
a
little
bit
of
a
problem.
But
as
long
as
you
do
that
you
won't
run
into
any
sticky
situations
like
that
and
Lord
knows
that
tarpon
springs
does
not
want
to
16.5
million
dollar
judgment,
so
that
is
it.