►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments August 23, 2017
Description
Description
A
B
B
D
B
B
E
B
B
E
Is
a
quasi
judicial
proceeding
where
the
Board
of
Adjustment
acts
in
a
quasi
judicial
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity
out
of
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
containing
the
Code
of
Ordinances
in
order
to
make
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
before
it.
E
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
and
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
in
favor
of
the
applicant.
By
the
same
token,
if
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
of
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
failed
to
meet
the
criteria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinance
and
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
against
the
applicant.
E
F
F
That's
going
to
pull
me
training
that
staff
and
us
becoming
a
team
is
going
to
pull
me
away
a
little
bit
from
this
or
so,
as
a
result,
Louie's
gonna
be
stepping
in
probably
for
the
next
six
months
or
so
to
kind
of
fill
in
for
me,
while
I'm
working
with
our
new
staff,
so
I
just
wanted
you
guys
to
know
that's.
Why
he's
here
and
he's
gonna
you're
gonna
see
a
lot
more
of
him.
B
B
Right
so
we're
gonna,
email,
Heather,
and
then
she
will
deal
with
it,
I
guess
with
the
decisions.
Thank
you
looking
forward
to
working
with
you
Louise.
Thank
you
all
right.
We
have
three
items
on
our
agenda
tonight.
The
first
is
an
extension
of
a
previously
approved
variance
on
seabreeze
Drive
second
is
variance
just
south
of
the
middle
school
for
a
pool
water
edge
enclosure
and
the
third
is
Kenneth
way,
which
is
just
near
Howard
part:
the
old
airport
property
future
development
of
a
non-conforming,
a
lot
of
Records.
B
So
if
any
objections
to
continuing
with
the
agenda
as
scheduled,
let's
start
off
with
4a.
This
is
a
six-month
extension
on
the
application
of
1589
variance
to
reduce
the
required
side
yard
setback
at
1650
for
Seabreeze
Drive
I,
don't
see
mr.
green
in
the
audience,
but
he
doesn't
need
to
be
here.
Heather
yeah.
F
Mr.
green
came
in
and
saw
me
a
little
bit
ago,
he's
in
the
process
of
actually
permitting
his
house,
but
he's
hit
some
difficulties
and
he's
working
through
them
with
Anthony
our
building
official,
and
with
that
he
had
record
he
had
asked.
If
there
was
any
way
he
could
seek
a
extension
and
I
said
that
yeah
he
could
get
it
he
could.
He
could
certainly
ask
this
board
for
a
six-month
extension.
Nothing
has
really
changed.
F
His
property
just
needs
some
additional
time
to
work
through
some
of
the
floodplain
issues
that
he's
experiencing
so
as
a
result
on
the
new
date.
If
you
choose
to
extend
him
the
six
months,
his
new
deadline
date
would
be
by
June,
2nd
of
2018
to
have
his
permit
complete
and
I'm,
pretty
sure
that
it
will
be
done
by
January.
We
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
he
had
the
six
months
if
he
needed
them,
because
I
told
him
you
know
you
don't
want
to
have
to
come
back
and
try
to
do
that
again.
F
You'd
have
to
go
back
to
the
process,
so
it's
basically
a
one
six
month
extension
and
then
they
have
to
come
back
completely
through
the
process,
so
we're
gonna
give
him
the
full
six
month
that
way.
He'll
have
plenty
of
time.
Should
he
need
that
additional
time?
And
so
that's
that's
that's.
What
is
going
on
with
this
particular
extension.
I
can
answer
any
questions
that
you
have,
but
no
of
the
none
of
the
provisions
have
changed.
You
know
the
rest
does
not
change
any.
G
F
There
is
no
additional
fee
for
this
request
and
we
don't
generally
advertise
and
they
just
go
on
your
agenda.
So
folks,
you
know
they're,
not
gonna,
see
the
difference.
They're
not
gonna,
know
necessarily
the
the
education
homers
aren't
gonna
know,
essentially
that
he's
getting
a
six-month
extension
because.
B
D
H
B
H
B
C
B
I
Evening
board
members
louis
cern
I'll,
be
presenting
this
item
and
looking
forward
to
working
with
you
in
the
future.
This
request
is
to
authorize
a
reduction
in
the
minimum
distance
between
the
pool
water's
edge
and
the
pool
enclosure
from
3
feet
to
18
inches.
The
purpose
of
this
request
is
to
replace
at
the
same
location
and
set
back
an
existing
pool
structure,
a
pool
enclosure
that
was
built
legally
prior
to
the
current
3
foot
setback
requirement.
I
The
applicant
has
indicated
that
the
existing
pool
enclosure
is
in
need
of
repair
and
that
it
cannot
be
enlarged
to
meet
the
requirement
due
to
the
location
of
plumbing
outside
of
the
of
the
perimeter
of
the
enclosure.
We've
reviewed
this
request
in
regard
to
the
variance
criteria
of
section
215
o
to
b
of
the
land
development
code,
and
our
findings
are
included
in
the
report.
Briefly,
our
findings
are
in
regard
to
criteria.
1,
the
physical
surroundings
are
unique
to
the
specific
property
involved
are
finding.
I
Is
that
the
need
for
the
variance
arises
out
of
the
site's
existing,
legally
non-conforming
pool
and
pool
enclosure?
These
structures
were
developed
in
accordance
with
the
setbacks
that
existed
at
the
time
of
development
and
create
a
physical
hardship
or
redevelopment
under
the
current
rule,
enclosure
setback
regulations
in
regard
to
you
criteria,
number
2,
that
the
conditions
are
special
circumstances
are
not
self
created.
Our
finding
is
that
the
pool,
enclosure
and
pool
setbacks
were
built
legally
in
1987.
This
was
prior
to
the
purchase
of
the
property
by
the
current
owners
in
1999.
I
In
regard
to
the
third
criteria
that
littoral
enforcement
of
the
requirements
of
the
city
of
tarpon
springs,
comprehensive
land
development
code
would
have
the
effect
of
denying
the
applicant
reasonable
use
of
the
property
are
finding
is
at
littoral
enforcement
of
the
pool.
Enclosure
setback
will
have
the
effect
of
prohibiting
the
replacement
of
the
pool
enclosure
which
has
existed
here
since
1987,
and
is
neat
in
need
of
repair
requiring
the
existing
pool
enclosure
to
remain
as
it
is
in
its
current
condition
or
requirements.
I
Removal
would
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
subject
property
in
regard
to
criteria
number
four.
The
granting
of
the
variance
will
not
confer
any
special
privileges.
Privileges
is
not
allowed
for
other
lands,
buildings
or
structure
in
the
same
zoning
district.
Our
finding
is
that
the
granting
of
the
variance
will
allow
replacement
of
the
pool
enclosure
at
its
current
location,
which
is
consistent
with
development
that
it
that
occurred
at
the
time
that
this
structure
was
originally
permitted
and
which
still
remain
in
place
in
that
area.
I
In
regard
to
criteria
5,
the
granting
of
the
variance
will
not
substantially
diminish
the
property
values
of
the
surrounding
area.
Our
finding
is
a
granting
of
the
various
will
allow
replacement
of
the
school
the
screen
enclosure
at
its
current
location.
It
would
not
affect
adversely
effects
surrounding
properties,
because
the
impacts
will
be
internal
to
the
subject
property.
I
B
H
F
A
H
B
H
H
D
Like
to
make
a
comment,
I
mean
once
again,
even
in
the
letter
written
by
the
family.
It
says
it
is
not
within
the
financial
means
of
the
residents
to
enlarge
the
size
of
the
enclosure
to
meet
the
three-foot
rule.
So
once
again,
financial
considerations
which
I'm
not
saying
that's
part
of
my
deliberation
here
seem
blatant.
And
yet
we
are
even
getting
a
recommendation
from
the
city
to
approve
this.
D
D
A
B
H
B
Application
1781
variance
to
allow
future
development
on
a
non-conforming
a
lot
of
record.
This
is
Kenneth
Wagle
and
gateway
homes
subdivision
near
between
Florida
Avenue
and
Howard
Park.
So
there
was
in
cyberspace
watching
us,
the
our
vast
audience
all
right,
we'll
have
some
staff
recommendation.
Please!
Yes,.
I
Louis
urn
again
presenting
this
item,
the
applicants
requesting
a
variance
to
allow
for
the
development
of
a
single-family
residence
on
a
non-conforming
a
lot
of
record.
This
lot
is
one
of
three
adjacent
Lots
under
a
single
ownership.
There's
an
existing
single-family
residence
located
on
the
middle
of
these
three
Lots
section,
24
0.02,
be
of
the
comprehensive
zoning
and
land
of
Alma
code
requires
it.
If,
at
any
time,
the
owner
of
such
a
non-conforming
locked
owns
adjoining
an
unimproved
lands
and
the
Lots
or
land
shall
be
combined
to
meet
the
minimum
requirements
of
the
code.
I
The
subject
lock
conforms
with
BR
100
a
zoning
district
standards
with
the
exception
of
minimum
lot
depth.
So
it
technically
is
not
buildable.
For
that
reason,
section
215
0.025
of
the
code
allows
for
the
granting
of
a
variance
to
allow
development
on
such
non-conforming
Lots,
subject
to
the
review
criteria
address
below
and
the
criteria
I'll
go
through
them
briefly
is
versus
that
the
lock
consists
of
at
least
one
entire,
a
lot
of
racket
record
on
the
effective
date
of
the
code.
I
A
lot
to
the
subject
lot
was
created
in
1956
as
a
part
of
the
Golden
Gate
Way
Holmes
unit.
One
subdivision:
the
lot
exists
in
its
same
configuration
and
size
as
it
was
originally
created.
The
second
criteria.
The
lot
was
not
created
in
violation
of
the
previous
zoning
ordinance.
The
subject
lot
was
created
legally
and
is
not
in
violation
of
the
development
regulations,
in
effect,
at
the
time
of
its
creation.
A
third
a
lot
was
not
combined
with
a
neighboring
lot
under
common
ownership.
I
In
order
to
allow
the
existing
improvements
on
the
neighboring
lot,
you
meet
applicable
setback.
This
lot
was
not
combined
with
the
neighboring
lot
in
order
to
allow
for
development
on
the
neighboring
lot
to
meet
applicable
setbacks.
The
neighboring
lot
developed
under
the
same
ownership
meets
a
lot
dimension
requirements
and
the
existing
single-family
residence
met
setback
standards
of
the
zoning
district
that
were,
in
effect
at
the
time
of
its
development,
without
use
of
the
adjacent
lot
number
four.
I
I
So
our
findings
are
that
this
item
does
meet
the
criteria
and
we're
recommending
that,
based
on
this
criteria
of
approval
of
the
variance
to
allow
for
development
of
a
single-family
residence
on
this
non-conforming
lot
of
Records,
subject
to
the
following
condition,
and
it's
the
standard
condition
that
it
shall
expire.
The
various
shall
expire
two
years
from
the
date
of
approval
by
the
Board
of
Adjustment.
B
I
F
B
J
J
Well,
the
only
reason
why
we
merged
it
into
into
one
was
to
save
a
little
bit
money
on
the
homestead,
but
now
we
want
to
split
it
up.
We
want
to
sell
the
house
and
the
back
lot,
but
the
new
owner
doesn't
want
the
non
confirming
lot.
So
that's
the
reason
why
we
have
to
split
it
up
now,
but
the
non
confirming
Lord
is
eight
thousand
eight
hundred
square
foot.
J
J
B
G
F
This
particular
case,
because
you
have
two
different
ones
and
their
differing
you
would
look
at
the
smallest
of
the
smallest
of
the
two,
because
it's
not
unlike
lot
with
depth
is
a
little
bit
different.
The
definition
is
different
bought
with
you
can
take
the
average
over
the
course
of
the
of
the
property.
So
if
you
as
long
as
you
have
an
average
of
whatever
the
distance
is,
there's
three
different
ways
to
meet
a
lot
with.
Unfortunately,
a
lot
depth
is
not
that
that.
C
F
J
J
J
H
A
J
B
Number
I'd
like
to
get
into
a
little
bit
of
history,
but
I,
know
I'm
not
allowed
the.
This
has
been
a
continuing
problem
on
the
board
of
adjustment
for
the
last
40
years
that
I've
been
involved
and
the
board
ultimately
passed
a
resolution.
That
said
when
you
have
to
not
conforming
lots
of
record
the
same
ownership,
but
one
is
vacant,
the
other
one
is
buildable
whatever.
That
was.
We've
had
dozens
of
instances
like
this
before
so
having
said
that,
let's
have
a
roll
call
vote.
Please.
B
D
B
F
B
All
right
board
comments:
I
have
one.
We
had
our
work
session
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
right
after
right
before
I
went
into
the
hospital
by
the
okay
who's
in
the
hospital
the
next
day,
but
I
managed
to
escape,
and
the
board
made
some
recommendations
to
the
City
Commission
for
changes
to
our
land
development
code.
Now
we
need
to
get
those
recommendations
once
we
approve
them,
which
is
now
going
to
be
apparently
two
more
months
because
there's
no
meeting
next
month,
so
the
minutes
are
not
ready
of
our
from
our
work
session.
B
So
it's
going
to
be
October
probably
before
we
can
approve
the
changes
that
the
board
has
made
for
recommendations
with
me
so
far.
We
need
to
get
that
to
the
City
Commission
and
normally
that's
done-
was
some
kind
of
a
letter
of
transmittal,
so
I've
drafted
something
today
like
to
get
the
board's
thoughts
about
this
I
mean
it
certainly
is
not
written
in
concrete
or
stone
it's
in
cyberspace.
So
it's
easy
to
make
change
it
any
thoughts
about
getting
this
to
the
City
Commission
and
then
future
steps
thereafter.
I
would.
E
Because
this
transmittal
and
understanding
that
that
whatever
the
decision
you
made
at
the
work
session
is
obviously
not
a
binding
decision,
because
no
active
decisions
can
be
made
at
a
workshop
that
it
has
to
be
a
regular
meeting
or
a
special
meeting
that
this
basically
says
that
you're
already
approving
it.
But
that's
not
actually
come
before
this
board
for
an
official
vote.
So
I'm
just
saying
understanding
it's
a
letter
of
transmittal
I'm.
Just
asking
that
we
put
this
on
the
same
agenda
on
where
you're
going
to
vote
on
that
same
issue.
E
E
Can't
vote
at
a
workshop.
You
cannot
take
official
action
at
a
workshop.
You
can
only
do
so
at
a
regular
meeting.
So
what
I'm
asking
is
that
you
table
this
until
you
take
actual
official
action
which
is
going
to
then
go
to
the
Board
of
Commissioners
or
you
can
do
so
informally.
I
mean
I.
This
is
not
in
your
code
because,
technically
this
board,
it
doesn't
have
the
power
to
do
this,
but
if
you're
going
to
do
it
needs
to
be
done
at
an
official,
it
needs
to
be
done
officially
at
a
meeting.
So.
E
If
you're
going
to
do
it
as
a
board,
and
you
want
to
make
it
official,
then
it
needs
to
be
done
at
a
regular
meeting.
It
needs
to
be
put
on
the
agenda
to
give
public
notice
so
that
they
can
participate
if
they
so
choose,
and
then
it
needs
to
be
officially
voted
on
before
we
have
the
discussion
about
what
a
form
letter
looks
like
already
approving
something
that
you've
not
actually
taken
official
notice,
an
official
action
on.
If
that
makes.