►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment August 22, 2018
Description
Description
B
C
E
E
F
C
Okay,
thank
you,
let's
be
sure
in
silence
our
cell
phones
and
whatever
other
electronic
equipment
we
have.
When
you
come
to
the
podium,
please
state
your
name
and
address
if
you
wouldn't,
and
we
have
two
items
on
the
agenda
and
I
wonder
if
it's
possible.
If
the
applicant
is
here
for
the
second
one
and
Riverside
Drive,
are
you
here?
Would
the
board
be
objectionable
if
object
if
we
took
him
out
of
order
and
let
this
one
go?
C
First,
okay,
I
foresee
that
the
sidewalk
variance
is
going
to
take
a
little
more
time,
and
this
one
has
a
staff
recommendation
for
approval.
Okay,
so
we'll
do
that
I
will
take
this
application
1881
first
and
then
1875.
Second,
all
right,
let's
begin
with
our
quasi
judicial
announcements
from
legal
counsel,
please!
Mr.
Perez,
this.
G
Is
a
quasi
judicial
proceeding
where
the
Board
of
Adjustment
acts
and
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's
already
been
applied
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.
G
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
at
this
hearing.
The
law
considers
competent,
substantial
relevant
to
the
issues
if
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates,
the
applicant
has
met
the
criteria
established
in
the
Code
of
Ordinances
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
at
the
hearing
demonstrates,
the
applicant
has
failed
to
meet
the
criteria
establishing
the
code
of
oryxes.
Then
the
board's
required
by
law
to
find
against
the
applicant
there.
G
A
A
G
Thank
you
very
much
and
when
else
from
the
board
wishing
to
just
disclose
an
expert
to
communication
or
conflicts
of
interest,
okay,
all
members
of
the
audience
or
anyone
that
was
going
to
be
speaking
tonight,
they
could
please
stand
and
raise
his
right
hand
to
be
sworn
in.
Do
you
swear
affirm?
The
testimony
about
to
give
tonight
is
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing,
but
the
truth.
I
do.
H
C
H
H
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
variance
from
the
total
side
setback
requirement,
the
side
yard
setback
on
the
principal
structures.
The
current
setbacks
are
11.6
feet
on
the
north
side
and
11.8
feet
on
the
south
side.
For
a
total
of
twenty
three
point
four
feet.
According
to
the
our
one
district
stand,
they
are
required
to
have
a
total
of
25
feet.
There
is
a
sketch
in
in
your
packet
that
shows
the
area
of
the
existing
structure
on
which
they
would
on
which
they
would
wish
to
expand.
H
Our
findings
on
this
is
that
the
the
house
was
constructed
in
70
in
1974
prior
to
the
current
zoning
requirements.
The
lot
itself
was
also
created
prior
to
that
time
they
were
legally
built
and
the
current
law
does
not
meet
the
minimum
lot
width
requirements
of
r100
of
75
feet,
so
that
is
a
factor
in
making
our
determination.
Our
findings
of
fact,
based
on
the
criteria,
are
contained
in
your
staff
report.
H
I
won't
go
through
them
in
detail
unless
you
have
any
specific
questions,
but
we
did
find
that
this
request
does
meet
the
criteria
for
findings
of
approval,
and
our
recommendation
therefore,
is
for
a
recommendation
of
approval
with
us,
with
a
single
condition
that
the
variance
shall
expire
two
years
from
the
date
of
approval
by
the
Board
of
Adjustment.
Thank.
C
F
F
C
A
C
C
H
This
application
is
to
authorize
a
waiver
from
the
sidewalk
construction
requirements
of
section
132
of
the
comprehensive
zoning
and
land
development
code.
The
property
is
the
eastern
287
feet
of
Ennis
Drive.
The
subject
property
consists
of
8
single-family
residential
lots
moved
by
the
city
under
two
separate
replants.
The
subdivision
contains
a
private
roadway,
the
dead
ends
and
the
spring
brought
by
you
that
serves
as
access
to
the
subdivision.
H
The
approved
replant
identified
the
roadway
as
an
ingress,
egress,
sidewalk
drainage
and
utility
easement,
the
roadway
and
other
infrastructure
serving
the
eight
lots
were
constructed
and
the
reef
flat
was
accepted
by
the
city.
However,
the
developer
never
constructed
the
sidewalks
for
the
subdivision.
Norther
did
the
developer
request
the
sidewalk
waiver,
as
suggested
by
the
Technical
Review
Committee
in
their
meeting
of
July
9
2015
in
order
to
with
section
132.
H
The
construction
of
the
sidewalks
in
front
of
each
lot
is
now
the
responsibility
of
the
individual
owners
as
a
condition
of
certificates
of
occupancy
for
the
proposed
houses
to
be
built
on
the
individual
Lots.
The
seven
owners
of
the
Lots
in
the
subdivision
have
requested
a
waiver
of
the
sidewalk
construction
requirement.
The
applicant
has
provided
a
narrative,
asserting
that
is
unfair,
to
require
the
residents
of
the
subdivision
to
construct
the
sidewalk,
because
the
community
is
private.
H
It
is
a
major
liability
for
all
property
owners
and
it
is
unfair
for
CEOs,
because
SEOs
have
been
previously
granted
for
some
of
the
Lots.
The
section
130,
a
section
131
of
the
code
requires
that
private
streets
comply
with
the
same
minimum
criteria
of
public
streets,
which
would
require
the
subdivision.
H
We
would
note
that
the
developer
was
made
aware
of
the
sidewalk
waiver
process
prior
to
the
construction
of
the
NSP
Point
subdivision.
At
that
time,
no
homes
had
been
constructed
and
no
CEOs
had
been
issued.
I'll
go
through
our
findings
and
the
criteria
on
this
one,
because
it's
a
little
different
than
most
variances
it
is.
These
are
specific
to
sidewalk
waivers
in
accordance
with
130
2.01
B.
The
the
request
has
to
be
both
of
the
following
criteria.
H
Number
one
is
the
need
for
the
requested
variance
arises
out
of
the
physical
surroundings,
shape
typographic
conditions
or
other
physical
or
environmental
conditions
that
are
unique
to
the
specific
property
involved,
and
our
finding
is
the
subject.
Property
is
a
private
subdivision
located
on
a
peninsula
that
extends
in
the
spring
by
you
as
such.
It
is
this
it
does
not
serve
as
public
access
to
the
water
or
other
destinations.
H
However,
the
sidewalk
would
serve
the
eight
Lots
within
the
subdivision
and
connect
to
existing
and
future
sidewalks
in
the
neighborhood.
The
second
condition
is,
or
the
second
criteria
is
the
conditions
or
specific
circumstances
or
kill
you
to
the
property,
have
not
been
self
created
or
have
resulted
from
actions
by
the
applicant
or
with
prior
knowledge
or
approval
of
the
applicant
and
are
fighting
on
this.
This
is
that
the
location
and
configuration
of
the
property
are
directly
the
results
of
the
actions
by
the
developer.
H
H
The
their
criteria
contained
in
130
2.01
see
the
application
has
to
meet
one
or
more
of
the
following
conditions,
and
those
are
that
the
existing
right-of-way
is
insufficient
is
insufficient
width
to
allow
installation
of
a
sidewalk
and
our
finding
is
that
the
existing
right-of-way
is
sufficient
is
of
sufficient
with
to
accommodate
a
sidewalk.
A
sidewalk
was
identified
on
the
approved
replants
as
we
as
we
indicated.
H
The
second
criteria
is
that
the
existing
right-of-way
is
unimproved
or
not
paved,
and
the
construction
of
the
street
is
not
it
included
in
the
responsible
jurisdictions,
five-year
capital
improvement
plan.
In
this
case
that
is
not
applicable
because
the
existing
right-of-way
is
paved
so
that
requirement
that
the
criteria
is
not
met.
H
The
third
criteria
is
that
the
strict
application
of
the
requirements
would
be
technical
technically
impractical
in
terms
of
engineering
design
due
to
existing
natural
conditions
related
to
topography
or
the
environment,
and
our
finding
is
that
criteria
is
not
met,
because
the
construction
of
the
sidewalk
would
not
pose
any
unusual
engineering
design
challenges
and
fourth,
the
Board
of
Adjustment
shall
not
consider
the
non
presence
of
other
sidewalks
in
the
neighbor
neighbourhood
as
justification
to
grant
the
waiver.
The
issue
is
not
being
offered
as
justification
of
the
waiver.
I
C
C
Right,
okay,
you'll,
maybe
make
a
correction
at
some
point
in
the
code
or
I
have
a
lot
of
other
comments.
But
if
we
are
finished
with
the
staff
questions
from
the
board,
then
let's
have
the
applicants
proceed.
If
you've
not
been
sworn,
please
let
us
know
anybody
here
come
in
and
has
not
taken
the
oath.
You
can
do
so
at
this
time
or
when
you
come
up.
A
J
C
J
Apologize
I
started
speaking
without
introducing
myself.
My
name
is
Cindy
Terra
penny
I'm
vice
president
of
planning
for
Florida
design
consultants,
and
this
evening
I
represent
one
of
the
property
owners
within
NS,
Point,
Anthony
and
Roxanne
Mar
Terry
I'm,
not
the
applicant.
He
is
here
as
well
and
he
will
speak
also,
but
I
do
represent
two
of
the
property,
one
of
the
property
owners
they
owned,
Lots
3
&
4,
which
is
the
two
vacant
lots
at
the
east
end
of
the
property.
J
My
clients
are
planning
to
build
a
single-family
home
on
the
two
Lots
are
going
to
combine
them
for
one
property
and
that's
why
I'm
here
tonight
is
to
speak
in
favor
of
the
waiver.
There's
two
major
reasons
why
this
waiver
should
be
granted.
The
first
reason
that
the
waiver
should
be
granted
is
that
the
only
place
to
install
the
sidewalk
is
on
private
property.
This
section
of
Ennis
tribe
is
a
private
drive
individually
owned
by
the
property
owners
they
own
to
the
center
of
the
pavement.
J
That's
shown
on
the
plat,
which
is
and
I'll
talk
about
all
the
documentation
in
a
minute.
It's
also
shown
on
the
two
maps
that
you
have
in
your
staff
report.
It
clearly
shows
that
the
right
away
stops
at
the
west
end
of
the
property,
and
this
Ennis
Drive
has
always
been
according
to
my
research
and
ingress/egress
easement,
and
never
public
right
away.
The
city
staff
has
indicated
that
sidewalks
are
required
on
both
public
and
private
streets
per
the
code.
However,
in
a
strive
is
neither
a
public
nor
a
private
street.
J
It
is
private
property
over
which
there
is
an
access
easement
to
allow
those
eight
property
owners
to
go
back
and
forth
and
the
folks
that
they
would
invite
to
their
homes.
Therefore,
the
section
of
the
code
requiring
a
sidewalk
is
not
applicable
to
Ennis
Drive
in
that
and
that's
why
the
waiver
should
be
approved.
The
city
does
have
private
streets
in
the
city
and
you
all
are
probably
aware
of
them.
Some
that
come
to
mind
instantly
our
point
Alexis
and
harbor
watch,
but
that
is
not
what
this
situation
is.
J
Additionally,
as
is
evident
from
the
aerial
and
I'm
sure
you're
familiar
with
the
site,
this
portion
of
innistrad
ed
ends
at
Spring
Bayou.
It
provides
access.
Only
to
these
eight
Lots
it
does
not
connect
to
any
other
Street,
and
it's
not
part
of
a
street
network
I'd
like
to
point
out
that,
on
page
three
of
the
staff
report
in
response
to
criterion
number
two,
this
two
and
three-
the
staff
report
incorrectly
labels
in
a
strive
as
an
existing
right
away.
J
It
is
not
a
right
away
if
the
waiver
is
not
granted,
the
sidewalk
would
be
located
on
private
property.
The
effect
of
putting
a
sidewalk
on
private
property
will
be
to
invite
the
public
onto
this
sidewalk
and
it's
it
could
be
attractive
because
it
leads
down
to
spring
by
you
to
the
water,
and
it
will
create
an
enormous
liability
to
each
of
these
property
owners.
Who
will
have
the
liability?
If
someone
is
injured
on
that
sidewalk,
it
will
not
be
the
public.
I
mean
I'll,
be
the
city,
because
it
is
not
a
public
right
away.
J
It
will
be
those
eight
property
owners
to
require
these
homeowners
to
bear.
The
burden
of
liability
is
not
only
unfair
but
could
also
be
considered
a
taking
of
private
property
without
compensation
by
that
I
mean
if
you
have
a
public
use,
such
as
a
sidewalk
on
private
property.
That
is
considered
a
taking
without
compensation,
but
if
the
city
thinks
the
sidewalk
is
so
necessary
and
so
important
to
the
overall
city,
good,
then
I
would
encourage
the
city
to
obtain
the
adequate
right
away,
either
through
purchasing
or
eminent
domain
and
build
a
sidewalk
themselves.
J
That
is
always
an
option
that
the
city
has.
The
second
major
reason
the
waiver
should
be
granted
is
that
the
city
has
granted
approval
of
multiple
applications
for
this
project
and
I'm
going
to
go
through
each
one
of
them.
None
of
those
approvals
showed
the
installation
of
a
sidewalk
when
we
repeat
that
none
of
those
approvals
showed
the
sidewalk.
The
Board
of
Commissioners
approved
the
site
plan
in
the
final
plat,
the
city
staff
approved
construction
plans,
an
estimate
of
improvements
for
construction
and
the
building
permits
for
the
four
existing
homes.
J
None
of
these
showed
a
sidewalk,
and
none
of
the
plans
showed
the
sidewalk
or
was
there
a
condition
to
add
the
sidewalk
at
a
later
date
to
now
require
the
seven
homeowners
to
install
the
sidewalks
ordinarily
on
these
property
owners,
because
they
have
relied
on
the
city's
previous
approvals.
Now
I'd
like
to
go
through
each
of
the
documents
that
shows
what
I
have
just
confirmed
to
you
and
they're
in
the
booklet
that
you
have
in
front
of
you.
J
So
going
back
to
the
first
reason
that
this
is
an
easement,
it
is
privately
owned
and
the
road
is
in
on
private
property.
Not
it
right
away.
If
you'll
turn
to
exhibit
one,
you
will
see
the
city
approval,
it's
resolution,
2016
22
and
that's
a
city
resolution
approving
the
final
plat
for
in
its
point
and
then
right
behind
the
staff
recommend
an
approval.
That
document
is
in
there
as
well,
and
then
you'll
see
the
two-page
plat
and
if
you
turn
to
the
second
page
of
the
plat,
you
can
clearly
see
that
there
is.
J
It
is
a
24-foot
private,
ingress,
egress,
easement
and
there's
a
plat
book
referenced.
Private
road
there's
also
utility
easement,
but
that's
not
really
relevant
for
tonight's
meeting.
Clearly,
that
is
not
a
right
away,
and
this
is
what
the
City
Commission
approved.
Is
this
final
plat?
If
the
board
had
thought
at
the
time
that
a
right
away
was
needed
instead
of
an
easement,
they
had
every
right
to
require
that,
but
they
did
not.
J
J
The
second
major
reason
that
I've
suggested
to
you
that
this
should
be
approved
is
that
there
are
multiple
city
approvals
without
showing
a
sidewalk
and
I'd
like
to
walk
through
those.
The
city's
process
for
a
subdivision
has
four
steps
or
four
phases.
The
developers
submitted
and
received
approval
for
all
four
steps.
So,
starting
with
the
first
one
site
plan
approval,
you
will
turn
into
your
exhibit
two.
You
will
see
the
resolution
number
of
2016
28.
J
Excuse
me
2015
28,
which
is
the
city's
up
city
board
of
commissioners,
approval
of
the
site
plan
and
then
I
also
have
in
there
for
you,
the
actual
site
plan
and
mr.
Elliott
mr.
chairman,
exhibit
two
there's
a
full-size
version
of
exhibit
two.
If
you'd
like
to
take
a
look
at
it,
there's
also
a
full-size
version
of
the
plat
that
I
handed
the
chairman
earlier
welcome
to
take
a
look
at
those
on
October
6
2015.
J
J
The
second
part
of
a
subdivision
approval
is
to
some
for
the
developer
to
submit
construction
drawings,
which
he
did,
and
the
city
staff
approved
the
construction
plans
and
issued
a
building
permit
on
March
1st
2016
you'll
refer
to
exhibit
three.
The
first
document
in
that
exhibit
is
the
approved
two
building
permit
signed
by
the
city
staff.
Then
the
second
document-
and
there
are
six
pages
to
it-
is
the
site
plan
that
was
excuse
me.
The
construction
plans
that
were
approved
looks
remarkably
similar
to
the
site
plan.
J
J
The
third
stop
in
a
subdivision
review
by
the
city
is
for
the
developer
to
install
the
improvements.
In
some
cases,
the
developer
installs
all
the
improvements
and
then
does
the
final
plat.
But,
alternatively,
the
city
does
allow
and
this
developer
decided
to
bond
the
improvements
or
provide
a
letter
of
credit
so
that
he
could
go
ahead
and
go
to
final
plat
and,
if
you'll
turn
to
now
to
exhibit
four.
J
This
includes
the
documents
related
to
the
improvements,
so
the
process
for
that
is
a
little
more
detailed,
but
I
think
it's
important
for
y'all
to
see
it
as
well.
The
first
step
in
that
improvement
process
is
that
the
developers
contractor
or
the
developer
himself
submits
a
cost
estimate
for
the
improvements,
and
those
are
the
first
two
pages
in
exhibit
4
a
tab
for
then,
the
city
reviews
that
cost
estimate
compares
them
to
the
construction
plans,
compares
them
to
their
knowledge
of
costs
for
doing
improvements
and
either
approves
or
denies
it.
J
The
third
page
in
that
same
exhibit
exhibit
4
is
a
letter
from
Anthony
Mastracchio,
the
building
development
director,
who
approved
the
cost,
estimate
and
requested
that
the
developer
provide
a
letter
of
credit.
The
next
two
pages
are
the
irrevocable
letter
of
credit
issued
by
flagship
bank.
So
what
this
does
for
any
of
you
who
may
or
may
not
be
familiar?
The
bank
is
saying
we
have
a
letter
of
credit.
We
are
confirming
that
this
money
is
available.
For
any
reason,
the
developer
should
not
complete
the
improvements
or
complete
them
satisfactorily.
J
The
city
has
the
ability,
through
this
letter
of
credit,
to
draw
on
that
money
and
use
that
money
to
complete
those
improvements.
So
the
letter
of
credit
was
submitted
to
the
to
the
city
for
the
same
amount
as
the
cost
estimates
that
the
city
staff
had
approved.
Then
what
happened
was
the
developer
completed
the
improvements
and
then
he
requested
that
the
letter
of
credit
be
released
back
to
him.
Since
the
improvements
were
complete,
there
was
no
need
any
longer
for
a
letter,
credit
or
a
guarantee.
J
The
improvements
for
the
NS
Point
subdivision
have
been
accepted
by
the
building
development
department,
so,
in
other
words,
all
the
improvements
are
complete
in
the
city's
opinion
and
a
letter
of
credit
can
go
back
to
the
developer.
There's
a
cost
to
a
developer,
to
have
a
letter
of
credit
or
a
bond.
So
that's
why
it's
important
to
the
developer
to
get
that
back.
It's
it's
almost
like
getting
cash
back.
Mr.
Elliott
can
explain
it
probably
better
than
I.
J
So
anyway,
this
on
October
26
2016,
the
city
staff,
the
two
departments
that
are
most
affected
by
this
and
responsible
the
building
apartment,
the
Planning
Department
said.
Yes,
he's
finished
the
improvement.
She
can
give
him
the
letter.
Credit
back.
If
you
see
at
the
very
bottom
of
that
page
Doug
Matthew
signed
it
on
November
3rd
2016,
indicating
that
he
had
picked
up
the
bond
and
he
was
in
agreement
with
that.
J
The
last
phase
of
a
subdivision
in
the
city's
process
is
to
the
approval
of
the
final
plat,
so
the
developers
finished
his
improvements,
he's
submitted
for
a
final
plat
and
the
Board
of
Commissioners,
approved
it
on
September
6
2016.
This
is
back
in
Tab,
one
that
we
talked
about
just
a
little
bit
ago,
but
again,
the
Board
of
Commissioners.
Looked
at
that
staff
reviewed
the
subdivision
plat.
There
was
no
mention
of
requiring
right
away.
J
So
in
summary
of
these
these
issues
a
developer,
followed
each
phase
of
the
city
requires
process.
He
got
approval
for
each
phase
of
that
process,
either
the
other
by
the
Board
of
Commissioners
as
appropriate
or
the
city
staff.
None
of
the
phases
approvals
required
the
installation,
the
sidewalk
and
none
of
the
plans
showed
a
sidewalk
to
be
installed
or
a
condition
to
required
at
some
later
date.
That
was
because,
in
his
drive
was
private
property.
It
was
not
a
street
or
a
right-of-way.
The
city
had
multiple
opportunities
to
require
it
to
be
right
away.
J
J
The
final
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
to
you
in
terms
of
documents
is
exhibit
five.
The
city.
There
are
four
homes
that
exist
in
this
subdivision.
Eight,
there
are
eight
Lots
total.
There
will
eventually
be
seven
homes,
because
my
clients
own
two
Lots,
so
four
of
those
Lots
have
been
built
on
and
the
city
has
issued
certificates
of
occupancy
for
those
four
homes.
However-
and
this
is
at
Table
five-
you
can
read
them
as
we
talk,
two
of
those
houses
have
temporary
or
conditional
COS
requiring
a
sidewalk.
Those
are
77
in
his
drive,
mr.
J
Bischoff
and
78
in
his
drive
mr.
demolish
mr.
Bischoff,
except
for
the
developer.
Mr.
Bischoff
has
been
in
the
property
the
longest
since
2017
so
I'm,
and
he
only
found
out
about
the
lack
of
the
size
he's
here.
He
can
tell
you
this
himself.
He
only
found
out
about
the
sidewalk
requirement
in
2018
way
after
he
had
already
been
see
owed.
There's
two
lots
also
that
have
permanent
cos
and
don't
have
any
condition
about
a
sidewalk
and
those
our
79
in
a
strive
for
the
circus,
family
and
82
and
its
drive
for
the
Matthews
family.
J
Now
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
criteria
for
issuing
a
waiver
and,
as
you
can
imagine,
I
have
a
drastically
different
opinion
than
the
staff
on
how
the
application
complies
with
those
waiver
criteria.
The
code
says
the
first
two
must
be
met.
You
have
to
meet
both
of
them
and
we
I
believe
we
do
meet
both
of
them.
First
of
all,
the
conditions
that
are
unique
to
the
site
are
these:
in
a
strive
is
a
private
drive.
It
is
located
on
private
property.
There
is
no
right
of
way.
J
It
is
not
a
public
street
or
a
private
street.
It
is
merely
an
easement
over
which
people
can
travel
the
owners
of
those
houses
and
folks
that
they
might
invite
in
in
a
strive
dead-ends
at
spring
by
you
and
only
provides
access
to
the
eight
Lots.
Installing
a
sidewalk
open
to
the
public
on
private
land
would
indeed
be
a
unique
situation
in
the
city
since,
throughout
the
city,
sidewalks
are
routinely
installed
on
public
right
away.
Examples
of
recently
approved
subdivisions
with
sidewalks
in
the
public
right
away.
J
The
second
criteria
is
that
the
the
special
conditions
are
not
unique
or
not
created
by
the
developer
or
clearly
the
fact
that
Ennis
Drive
is
a
private
drive
and
has
been
since
1998
was
not
created
by
the
developer.
He
didn't
even
buy
the
property
until
substantially
after
that.
This
status
as
an
easement
is
not
the
creation
of
the
applicant.
Nor
is
the
dead-end
configuration
of
Ennis
Drive
that
the
creation
of
the
of
the
developer.
J
It's
not
his
fault,
that's
just
the
way
the
land
was
laid
out
in
the
way
the
land
was
created,
since
both
of
the
first
two
criteria
are
met,
the
land
development
code
states,
the
waiver
must
be
granted
then
that
there
are
four
additional
criteria
and
I
agree
with
mr.
Stahr.
Now
my
reading
of
the
code
is
only
one
of
those
four
must
be
met
and
we
do
you
meet
one
of
them,
a
couple
of
them.
J
Actually,
three
of
them
don't
apply,
and
let
me
explain:
the
first
criteria
says
that
the
waiver
should
be
granted
if
they're
existing
right
away
is
not
wide
enough
for
a
sidewalk.
There
is
no
existing
right
away,
so
that
just
doesn't
even
apply
to
us.
It's
just.
It
doesn't
mean
that
we
meet
it
or
don't
mean
it.
It
just
is
irrelevant.
The
second
criteria
is:
if
the
existing
right
away
is
unpaved,
then
you
might
get
a
sidewalk
variance
again.
There
is
no
existing
right
away.
This
is
not
existing
right
away.
J
It's
not
any
kind
of
right
away.
Existing
proposed,
it
is
privately
owned.
Property
distinctly
different
from
right
away.
The
third
criteria
is
that
requiring
the
sidewalk
will
be
technically
impractical
in
terms
of
engineering,
design
and
I
believe
that
it
would-
and
that
is
because
to
install
these
sidewalks
over
private
property.
Today
there
has
been
landscaping
installed,
there
have
been
irrigation
systems
installed,
and
certainly
there
have
been
underground
utilities,
sewer
water,
reclaimed,
water,
electric
and
cable.
J
All
those
services
have
been
installed
off
to
the
four
houses
that
exist
there
today,
as
well
as
stub
outs
to
the
other
Lots
so
clearly,
technically,
it
will
be
difficult
and
impractical
to
install
that
sidewalk
and
there's
gonna
have
to
be
a
whole
lot
of
surveying
done
to
figure
out
where
actually
are
the
utilities,
to
make
sure
that
you
don't
impact
those
utilities
and
cut
off
somebody's
sewer
water,
so
is
it?
Is
it
difficult?
Yes,
is
it
technically
impractical?
Yes,
it
is
for
those
reasons.
J
The
fourth
criteria
is
that
we,
you
should
not
consider
the
lack
of
sidewalks
in
the
areas
of
justification,
we're
not
asking
for
that.
So
that's
another
one
that
doesn't
apply
so
of
the
four
three
of
them
are
irrelevant
and
not
applicable
to
our
site,
the
third
one
that
it's
technically
difficult
and
impractical.
We
believe
that
it
does
meet
that
criteria.
Just
to
summarize,
as
I
stated
in
my
introduction,
there's
two
major
reasons:
to
approve
this
waiver
in
addition
to
the
fact
that
it
complies
to
the
waiver
criteria.
J
First
of
all,
the
only
place
to
install
the
sidewalk
is
on
private
property.
Again,
if
you
require
the
sidewalk
on
private
property,
it
will
create
a
significant
burden
and
liability
for
all
those
property
owners,
if
someone's
injured
on
that
sidewalk
additionally
to
require
that
public
use
on
private
property,
a
sidewalk
is
considered
a
public
use,
it's
a
taking
of
private
property
without
constitution
without
compensation,
it's
clearly
a
violation
of
the
Constitution
again.
If
the
city
thinks
sidewalks
are
that
necessary
on
this
small
little
subdivision,
they
have
the
opportunity
to
do
that
themselves.
J
I'm,
certainly
I'm,
not
aware
of
any
city
regulation
that
can
require
a
property
owner
to
allow
the
public
to
cross
his
own
private
property
against,
as
well
I.
Think,
that's
generally
called
trespassing.
The
second
major
reason
to
approve
the
waivers
at
this.
The
project
and
the
developer,
followed
the
city's
process
for
subdivision
and
received
every
approval
that
was
required.
J
The
city
staff
does
not
have
the
authority
to
override
the
Board
of
Commissioners
decisions
on
this
matter
and
to
now
require
the
sidewalk
or,
as
I
think
might
have
happened,
although
I
can't
be
sure
change
their
interpretation
somehow
to
now
say
that
we
are
subject
to
this
requirement
when
clearly,
at
the
time,
the
site
plan
and
the
plat
and
the
construction
drawings
and
the
building
permits
were
issued.
The
city
believed
that
the
sidewalk
wasn't
required.
J
It's
right
and
fair
that
these
private
property
owners
can
rely
on
the
city's
previous
approvals
and
that's
why
they've
requested
this
waiver,
based
on
the
facts
and
the
evidence
that
I
provided
to
you
tonight,
I
believe
that
the
application
has
met
all
the
criteria
for
approval
of
a
waiver.
I
would
respectfully
request
your
approval
tonight.
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
know
I,
provided
a
lot
of
information
that
you
may
not
have
seen
before
again
I'm
happy
to
answer
your
questions
and
I
do.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Thank.
C
You
very
much
mr.
apini
mom
I
forgot
to
mention
that
there's
full
cross-examination
anybody
can
cross-examine
anybody
from
the
staff
for
the
applicants.
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
aware
of
that.
I
also
want
to
make
sure
we're
aware
we
have
an
existing
Commissioner
visiting
with
us
today,
Commissioner
Khare,
thank
you
very
much,
and
prior
Commissioner
Terrapin
is
sitting
back
there.
Thank
you
for
coming
to
visit
with
us
any
questions
from
the
board.
First
of
all,
they
do
yes,
sir.
A
Thank
you
for
your
in
depth
report
when
I'm
listening
to
you
making
it
sound
to
me
that
the
developer
was
did
everything
accordingly
and
the
city
approved
of
it.
But
in
parrot
this
paragraph
and
let
me
read
this
to
you
what
it
states
it
says.
The
developer
was
made
aware
of
this
sidewalk
waiver
process
previous
to
the
construction
and
I
can
read
the
rest
of
the
paragraph,
so
that
kind
of
negates
your
explanation
that
it's
you
know
that
the
city
accepted
it
the
way
it
was.
A
It
also
states
here
that
the
city
staff
arid,
and
it's
not
picking
that
up,
so
that
also
doesn't
give
anybody
who's
doing
something,
building
something
the
right
to
not
put
that
in,
because
there's
been
an
error.
So
these
are
the
two
things
that
I
see
beside
there's.
Another
part
that
I
would
love
for
you
to
explain
where
it
says.
However,
the
developer
never
constructed
sidewalks
for
the
subdivision.
Nor
did
the
developer
request.
A
J
Thank
you,
mr.
Eisner.
Further
your
questions,
I
can
answer.
Some
of
them.
I
did
not
represent
the
developer.
I
didn't
I,
wasn't
part
of
the
review
process
for
these
applications,
so
I
can't
testify
to
what
the
staff
told
the
developer.
If
he
you
know,
he
can
testify
to
that
as
he
wishes.
But
I
can
testify
to
what
it
said
and
I
have
the
Technical
Review
Committee
minutes
from
July
9th
2015
when
the
site
plan
was
reviewed,
and
this
is
a
quote.
J
This
is
the
only
comment
anywhere
in
the
TRC
minutes
about
sidewalks
and
here's
what
it
says:
sidewalk
possible
waiver
requirements.
What
does
that
mean?
I
have
no
idea
what
that
means.
Does
that
mean
the
staff
might
possibly
require
the
waiver
or
the
applicant
might
possibly
request
it
if
he
decides
to,
or
does
it
mean
that
possibly
the
sidewalks
are
required?
Possibly
they're,
not
I,
really,
don't
know
what
that
means.
Every
site
plan
that
I've
ever
seen
in
the
city
and
this
one
included
has
conditions
attached
to
it
if
they
didn't
show.
J
If
the
developer
didn't
show
the
sidewalk
on
this
site
plan,
which
we
know
that
he
didn't,
because
you
have
the
site
plan
in
front
of
you,
they
could
have
made
it
a
condition
of
approval.
They
did
not.
You
have
that
resolution
in
front
of
you.
It
was
not
included
as
a
condition
if
the
staff
felt
that
that
the
sidewalk
was
required,
then
they
should
have
made
it
a
condition
either
it
made
it
a
condition
or
shown
it
on
the
site
plan
again
I'm.
J
Coming
to
this
as
a
I
guess,
a
forensic
investigator
trying
to
figure
out
what
happened
in
the
past
and
my
supposition
is
that
when
they
saw
that
it
was
private
property
and
not
a
public
street,
not
a
private
street
that
the
staff
decision
at
the
time
was
that
the
sidewalk
was
not
required,
because
you
only
have
to
do
a
sidewalk.
If
you
were
at
a
public
street
or
a
private
street,
that's
clearly
what
the
code
says
and
I
absolutely
agree
that
that's
what
the
code
says.
This
driveway
is
neither.
J
It
is
neither
a
public
street
nor
a
private
Street.
It
is
private
property.
That's
all
those
are
totally
different
animals,
streets
and
right
in
right
away
and
property.
So
clearly,
that's
that's
my
belief.
I
cannot
prove
that
because
I,
you
know,
there's
no
documents
that
show
that,
except
to
me
the
document
that
shows
that
that's
what
they
must
have
been
thinking
at
the
time
by
they
I
mean
the
staff
is
that
the
site
plan
got
approved
with
a
no
sidewalk
on
the
site
plan
and
no
condition
to
require
it
at
some
later
date.
I
have.
A
A
I
just
wanted
to
follow
up
with
two
of
the
things
you
also
mentioned
about
liability,
but
just
plain,
given
everybody
who
owns
sidewalk
owns
a
house
as
liability.
So
you
know
I,
understand
you're,
saying
that
they
shouldn't
have
the
liability
because
they
don't
have
the
sidewalk
and
putting
the
sidewalk
would
give
them
liability.
But
anybody
walking
on
their
property
right
now
would
have
ability
I.
J
Agree
that
is
that
it,
when
you
and
une
purse,
property
owner
or
homeowner
or
resident,
invites
someone
into
your
home
and
something
happens
in
your
home.
That's
your
fault!
Yeah!
You
have
liability,
maybe
your
stairs
haven't
been
fixed
or
you
know
whatever
it
might
be.
That
is
distinctly
different
from
a
sidewalk
in
a
sidewalk
in
a
public
right
away,
someone
trips
and
falls
on
that
Sidewalk,
the
city
is
liable
and
the
city
carries
insurance
for
exactly
those
kind
of
claims.
If
this
sidewalk
is
required,
it
will
be
put
on
private
property.
J
It's
not
in
a
public
right
away.
The
city
will
not
insure
it
and
and
pay
out
any
claim
if
someone
gets
injured
on
that,
that's
the
distinction
I'm
trying
to
make.
If
it's
totally
one
thing,
if
what
happens
in
inside
the
home
or
on
your
property,
we
all
understand
that
something
could
happen
and
you
would
be
liable
I'm
talking
about
what
would
happen
on
the
sidewalk
on
a
public
sidewalk.
The
city
has
a
liability
because
they
have
the
right
away
and
they
have
the
requirement
to
maintain
the
right
away.
J
J
J
B
G
G
C
J
It's
pretty
clear:
the
liability
goes
with.
Whoever
owns
the
property,
the
people
who
own
the
property
where
that
sidewalk
will
be
constructed,
are
my
clients
and
the
other
owners
of
that
of
those
Lots.
The
city
doesn't
own
anything
there.
They
don't
have
any
right
away
there,
they
don't
have
any
ownership,
so
they
can't.
Possibly,
how
can
someone
who
doesn't
own
it
be
liable?
I
mean
that's
my
opinion.
I'm,
not
an
attorney
I'm,
not
trying
to
supersede
your
attorneys
advice
but
I'm,
just
saying
pretty.
G
G
There
are
two
questions
you're
asking,
whether
you
know
it
or
not:
I'm
asking
me
I'm,
not
gonna
open
on
where
the
property
is
or
whose
property
it
is.
If
it
is
private
property,
and
someone
has
heard
on
private
property,
whether
there's
a
sidewalk
on
it,
whether
there's
a
house
on
it,
whether
there's
a
vacant
lot,
it
is
private
property.
The
private
property
owner
would
be
liable
or
potentially
correct,.
J
G
J
I
would
and
just
to
close
the
loop
on
that,
if
you
would,
you
can
y'all
certainly
have
the
ability
to
do
this,
as
you
do
this
at
every
one
of
your
meetings.
Take
a
look
at
the
plot,
the
Ennis
Point
plat,
which
is
exhibit
one
and
see
that
the
property
lines
for
each
lot
extend
to
the
center
of
that
easement.
So
there
is
no
private
there's,
no
public
property
that
runs
to
the
middle
of
Ennis
point.
That
is
all
private
property.
J
There
there
also
is
a
the
ingress
egress
easement,
that
was
the
original
easement.
I
know
this
is
maybe
more
than
you
want
to
know
is
the
24-foot
it's
in
about
the
center
of
the
plot.
It
says:
24,
foot,
private,
ingress,
egress
easement
from
plat
book,
125,
page
76,
that
was
the
original
24
foot
easement.
J
It's
a
it's
an
easement,
which
does
not
mean
you
does
not
require
you
to
install
a
sidewalk,
doesn't
require
you
to
install
utilities.
It
says
that
an
easement
is
grants
the
right
for
ingress
and
egress
the
right
to
putting
utilities
and
the
right
to
put
in
a
sidewalk.
It
does
not
require
a
sidewalk
big
distinction,
very
important
distinction.
Okay,
all.
B
Right,
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
So
if
there
is
a
if
the
city
has
a
right
to
have
a
sidewalk
there,
then
there
then
does
that
mean.
The
city
assumes
the
liability
for
what
happens
on
that
city
sidewalk,
not
talking
about
the
private
property
home
home
yard.
Stairs,
though,
on
the
sidewalk
itself.
J
J
For
example,
the
utilities
that
are
in
the
easement
that
serve
each
of
those
eight
Lots
are
the
obligation
of
the
each
property
owner.
If
there's
a
problem
with
that
sewer
connection
or
water
connection
in
the
easement
in
the
road,
in
that
driveway,
each
individual
property
owner
has
to
repair
it
once
the
sewer
line
goes
off
the
site
and
goes
to
the
west
out
of
the
property.
That's
when
the
city's
obligation
would
pick
so
again.
The
dedication
third
actually
gets
us.
The
fourth
paragraph
down
is
dedicated
to
the
owners
of
the
lots.
J
Just
throwing
that
out,
it
might,
but
at
this
point
in
time,
and
it's
not
gated
and
we've
been
advised
by
the
city
staff
that
to
gate
it,
since
the
gate
wasn't
shown
on
the
site
plan,
we
have
to
go
back
through
the
site
plan
process
and
amend
the
site
plan.
So,
if
you
take
that
to
its
logical
conclusion,
since
the
sidewalk
wasn't
shown
on
there,
we
would
have
to
go
back
somehow
through
the
site
plan
process.
So
I
have
that
in
writing
from
mr.
J
Weiler
that
that's
what
we
would
have
to
do
to
add
a
gate,
I'm
sure
there's
going
to
be
requirements
from
the
fire
department
about
how
many
cars
have
to
stack
up
and
all
those
other
things
we
would
like
to
put
in
a
gate,
I
hope
to
help
the
developer
and
the
part
my
client
put
in
a
gate.
But
it
is
not
there
today.
It
could
help
if
we
if
it
were
installed,
but
it's
not
installed
today.
Yeah.
H
The
code
requires
the
public,
the
private
streets
be
built
to
public's
construction
standards
and
that,
in
staffs
opinion,
would
include
the
sidewalk
a
lot
of
what
the
city's
review
on
this
is
to
make
sure
that
the
street
is
built
to
public
standards.
So
there's
a
lot
of
construction
review
and
despite
the
fact
that
be
the
property
lines
are
to
the
centerline
of
the
street.
It
is
indeed
as
defined
by
code,
a
street
and
that's
in
the
definition
section
of
that
staff.
Staffs
position
is
that,
despite
ownership,
who
owns
the
street,
it
is,
it
is
private.
J
Then
I
sit
down
a
street
and
your
private
property,
where
your
house
sits,
are
two
mutually
exclusive
things.
My
property
doesn't
go
into
the
middle
of
spring
Boulevard,
your
property
doesn't
go
into
the
middle
of
the
street,
most
of
you
I'm,
guessing
I,
don't
know
where
all
of
you
live.
If
you
live
on
a
public
street,
your
ownership
doesn't
go
into
the
middle
of
that
street.
There's
a
street
which
is
distinct
and
separate
from
private
property.
That's
a
distinction.
I
must
respectfully
disagree
with
mr.
Serna.
J
It
is
not
a
private
street,
it
is
a
driveway
and
it
is
privately
owned
property
and
there
is
an
easement
that
goes
over
the
top
of
it.
But
again
an
easement
and
a
street
and
a
right
of
street
or
a
street
right
away
are
two
distinctly
different
things
and
mr.
Elliott's
an
attorney.
He
can
explain
it
to
you,
probably
better
than
I.
Could
an
easement
is
different
from
a
right
away.
An
easement
means
the
property
owner
still
owns
the
land
underneath,
which
is
the
case
in
this
in
this
application.
I.
K
Question
this
is
really
an
interesting
case
by
the
way.
Thank
you
for
the
details.
You've
mentioned
quite
a
few
times
that
back
on
Resolution,
2,
0,
1,
5,
2
8
that
that
the
developer
met
all
the
conditions
you
just
summarily
said.
We
met
all
the
conditions
and
I'm
looking
for
a
little
bit
of
clarification
on
condition.
Number
one
that
says
the
developer
is
responsible
for
acquiring
all
other
jurisdictional
permits,
and/or
approvals
and
for
meeting
the
minimum
criteria
of
the
land
development
code.
It
doesn't
say
sidewalk.
It
says
all
other
and
I'm
curious.
K
How
we've
gotten
to
this
point
three
years
later,
where
the
debate
and
it
wasn't
that
it
doesn't
say
the
the
staff
is
responsible
for
that
or
the
staff
can't
make
an
error.
It
says
the
developer
is
responsible,
so
I
kind
of
believe
the
way
I
read
that
and
I'd
look
for
some
clarification,
maybe
from
counsel
or
or
staff,
but
it
kind
of
sounds
like
that's
included,
that's
part
of
all
the
other
minimum
land
development
code.
Can
you
explain
how
that
doesn't
cover
sidewalks
or
anything
else
required
sure.
J
Thank
you
for
your
question.
Mr.
cleanser,
the
applicant,
the
developer
did
work,
the
other
jurisdictional
permits
is
I
believe
is
referring
to
Swift,
mud
or
FDOT
or
any
other
non
city
agencies.
He
has
an
exemption
from
Swift
mud.
What
I
would
say
to
you
is
that,
first
of
all,
I've
seen
this
condition.
It's
kind
of
a
blanket
condition.
The
city
puts
in
all
their
site
plan
approvals
where
that
condition
is
then
reviewed
by
the
staff
is
in
the
next
two
levels
of
review
process,
which
is
in
construction
plans
and
building
permits.
J
J
Then
you
must
only
draw
the
conclusion
that
the
city
approved
it
because
it
met
everything
in
that
land
development
code.
The
city
knows
that
code
better
than
anybody,
so
I
mean
I.
Read
it
a
lot,
but
I
certainly
don't
know
it
as
well
as
the
folks
that
deal
with
it
every
day.
Like
mr.
stern
or
mr.
Weiler,
so
yes,
this
is
a
general
statement
that
he
is
must
comply
with
all
that.
But
the
city
reviewed
this
project
two
more
times
for
the
specific
compliance
with
the
land
development
code
and
approved
it
without
a
sidewalk
and.
K
I
hear
you,
however,
I
kind
of
linked
that
back
to
there
must
have
been
based
on
even
other
statements
of
mr.
Eisen
brought
it
up.
There
was
some
talk
back
in
2015
about
sidewalks
I.
Wasn't
there
it
was
part
of
the
minutes,
but
there
was
talk
about
sidewalks.
There
was
talk
about
conditions,
it
wasn't
like.
It
was
a
new
concept
that
just
came
up
in
2008
team.
It's
been
out
there
for
a
while
in
some
way
shape
or
form
and
I.
J
K
Don't
know,
but
it
just
seems
like
it's
like
you
said:
the
city
knows
the
code
better
than
anybody.
I
know
that
if
I'm
driving
80
miles
an
hour
in
a
70
mile,
an
hour
zone
and
I
didn't
know
that
it
was
70.
My
ignorant
of
the
law
doesn't
accept
me
from
the
law.
I
still
have
to
go,
70
I
can't
go
80.
I
can't
do
things
that
I'm
not
supposed
to
do
I'm
pretty
sure.
That's
a
pretty
general
and
I.
K
I'm
not
saying
that
the
homeowners
I'm
saying
I
go
back
to
the
developer
and
at
this
point
I'm
trying
to
forget
who
pays
for
anything
whether
it's
homeowners,
developer
city,
I'm,
trying
to
forget
about
that
in
my
own
head
and
wrap
my
arms
around
the
bottom
line.
Should
there
be
sidewalks
here?
Could.
C
A
C
L
I
Good
evening,
Doug
Matthews
I
live
at
82
in
his
Drive.
I
am
developed
and
AM
the
developer
and
builder
of
the
first
four
homes
that
are
on
the
street
or
easement.
As
the
case
would
be.
My
house
was
the
first
house
built
I,
see
owed
it.
Was
he
owed
in
December
of
2015
without
a
sidewalk
I'm
aware
of
the
application
or
the
the
no
for
application
for
variance
of
side?
Of
that
said,
sidewalk
there
was
a
conversation
I
had
with
Anthony
mr.
I
Conversation
was
to
create
sidewalks
are
by
designer
to
create
community,
at
least
in
this
particular
area,
and
what
the
essentially
the
verbal
approval
from
mr.
Mercer
Accio
was
to
take
the
sidewalks
from
the
front
of
the
property
and
put
them
on
the
rear
of
the
property,
where
this
entire
Peninsula
is
all
waterfront
property.
I
C
A
I
I
So
again
at
that
situation,
that
we
have,
we
have
eight
Lots
that
essentially
are
assigned
to
three
different
entities.
We
have
the
north
side
of
the
innocent
of
the
in
Australia
v's
man
is
in
his
point
and
then
the
south
side
there's
three
Lots
there
that
are
noted
as
Tarpon
estates
and
then
the
on
the
south
side
furthest
west
lot
is
owned
by
a
doctor,
root
or
the
root
family,
trust,
I,
believe
and
that
property
has
been
owned
by
by
dr.
root
since
I
believe
2003.
So.
I
A
I
M
M
M
M
I
The
count
the
conversation
I
had
with
mr.
mr.
SEO,
basically
from
what
I
understood
and
took
from
that
meeting,
was
that
was
waived.
I
also
brought
with
me
is
the
approved
site
plans
for
those
two
homes
that
are
complete
on
that
side
of
the
street.
Those
site
plans
that
were
approved
by
the
building
department
by
Planning
and
Zoning
and
all
departments
within
the
city
do
not
show
any
sidewalks.
So
as
the
builder
of
record
for
those
two
homes,
I
don't
have
a
sidewalk
on
the
site
plan.
I
don't
put
a
sidewalk
on
their
property.
M
I
L
L
Purchased
the
properties
in
26th
2015
are
my
property.
There
wasn't
any
time
during
the
whole
time,
I've
owned
the
property
that
I
was
ever
told
about
a
sidewalk
I,
never
made
it
in
my
plan
for
landscaping
or
for
sprinklers
or
anything
I'm.
Just
you
know,
I'm,
just
a
resident,
they're,
not
I,
don't
know
much
about
all
these
rules
and
things
I'm,
not
in
planning
I'm,
not
net
I'm,
not
an
airline
pilot
I,
don't
get
on
the
plane.
L
The
main
issue
with
me
is
liability,
just
like
I'm,
just
repeating
what
everyone
else
said
to
have
a
sidewalk
go
through
my
private
property.
This
is
really
odd
to
me.
You
know
just
it's
beyond
me
to
think
that
I've
got
to
do
that.
I
never
had
a
I've
got
many
properties,
never
had
one
like
that
before
I
think
that's
about
it.
I
don't
have
much
to
say.
I
kind
of
rely
on
the
city
and
on
the
developer,
you
know
to
do
the
right
thing
as
I'm.
You
know
going
along
with
this
project.
K
L
B
L
L
Say
so
calling
the
water
cross
my
property
to
get
to
the
back.
You
know
to
do
that
as
far
as
what
they
would
do
right
now,
I
think.
If
we
had
to
put
one
in
the
front
and
if
you
ever
go
down
there
you'll
see
there's
there
are
existing
sidewalks
that
can't
come
up
and
then
we
would
be
attaching
to
those.
How
would
a?
How
would
the
public
know
that
all
sudden
lists
we
put
a
big
sign
there
and
I
put
a
gate
across
it
that
you're
not
supposed
to
cross
and
go
into
private
land?
L
I
can
put
a
sign
there,
but
if
nobody
in
the
private
property
wants
it,
why
do
we
need
to
put
it
there?
You
know,
that's,
maybe
simple.
What
I'm
saying
you
know
I
know:
there's
a
lot
of
rules
around
this,
but
as
a
just
as
a
resident,
that's
done
other
things
in
his
life.
Besides
development,
it
seems
odd
to
have
the
city
require
me
to
put
a
public
sidewalk
through
my
private
property
I.
You
know,
I
had
15
properties
or
more,
and
none
of
them
have
ever
been
asked
for
me
to
do
that.
Do.
K
So,
but
what
we're
talking
about
with
a
waiver
attaches
whatever
waiver
or
adjustment
to
that
property
forever?
So
it's
not
you
and
it's
not
the
other
people
that
are
earning
it's
it's
in
perpetuity
that
these
people
are
aren't
gonna
be
required
to
do
that
and
who's
to
say,
and
you
could
make
up
anything
about
you
know.
Maybe
your
neighbor
wants
to
walk
their
dog
on
the
sidewalk.
Er
has
a
disadvantaged
child
that
needs
you
know
wheelchair
access
or
something
along
it
to
just
go
out
and
walk,
or
something
like
that.
K
L
L
The
big
thing
with
me
is
liability.
You
know
all
these
things
make
sense.
What
you
say
makes
sense
to
me,
but
liability
is
a
big
issue
in
America
and
I.
Had
someone's
dog
come
over
and
bite
a
tenant
from
the
neighbor's
house
and
they
tried
to
sue
us.
It's
like
you
know,
I,
just
I,
don't
know
I'm,
not
an
attorney.
I,
don't
understand
it,
but
I
know
if
somebody
was
walking
across
my
property
and
our
kid
broke.
His
collarbone
hit
my
mailbox
or
something
they're
not
going
to
go
after
the
city.
L
They're
gonna,
look
at
elder
here's
a
guy
with
a
million
dollar
home
or
this
guy
here
with
two
million
dollar
home.
You
know
see
what
they
can
do
for
us.
So
that's
the
thing.
Liabilities
number
one
bite
many
times
over
anything
else,
yeah.
It
would
be
nice
in
the
future.
I
can't
tell
what
someone's
gonna
want
them
later,
but
to
have
a
nice
street,
you
can
walk
on
the
street
just
as
easily
as
a
sidewalk.
L
L
L
A
L
Well,
I'm
sure,
there's
other
things
to
consider.
But
to
me
you
know,
like
I,
said:
I'm,
not
a
board
member
I'm,
not
a
city,
planner
I'm,
not
an
attorney,
but
for
me
as
a
resident,
the
pays
taxes
here
and
all
that
stuff.
I,
don't
want
the
city
telling
me
I
gotta,
let
people
walk
across
my
property
and
then
wonder
if
one
day,
I'm
gonna
have
an
issue
with
that
and.
L
That's
a
liability
thing
or
just
the
fact
that
I
don't
want
to
deal
with
it
later
rather
deal
with
it
now
and
not
have
to
do
it.
You
know
there
wasn't
one
time
in
the
three
years,
I've
owned
that
property,
that
the
sidewalk
issue
came
up
until
May
5th,
or
so
when
I
got
a
violation,
saying
that
if
I
don't
put
a
sidewalk
I'll
be
fined,
that's
the
first
time
I
heard
about
it.
A
L
L
A
C
B
C
J
Believe,
mr.
chairman,
under
your
rules,
I
have
an
opportunity
for
a
rebuttal.
I'll,
be
brief.
I
just
want
to
make
a
couple
of
points
if
I
could.
First
of
all
the
verbal
comments
that
you
keep
several
of
you
keep
referring
to
in
the
TRC
that
a
possible
waiver
is
completely
overridden
by
the
staffs
later
approval
of
construction
plans
with
no
sidewalk
and
building
permits
with
no
sidewalk
those
are
written
documentation.
So,
in
my
opinion
that
has
been
compiled,
answers
I
think
mr.
Glen
sirs
question.
J
Yes,
there
was
a
condition,
a
catch-all,
a
general
condition
on
the
site
plan.
You
have
to
meet
the
whole
land
development
code
and
we,
the
staff.
Everyone
knows
that
the
staff
reviews
that,
when
you
go
to
the
next
level
of
review,
the
next
level
review
for
this
project
was
construction
plans
and
building
permits.
Now
the
staff
is
saying
they
erred,
I,
don't
know
if
they
erred
or
not,
but
they
approved
it.
J
The
staff
approved
those
construction
plans
and
they
approved
the
building
permits
in
writing,
and
you
heard
Mr
Bischoff's
testimony
today,
he's
been
in
the
house
for
what
seven
months
and
first
heard
of
that
a
need
for
a
sidewalk
waiver
on
May
5th
of
this
year.
Secondly,
it's
not
really
about
who
to
answer
mr.
want
to
think.
May
mr.
eisenerz
question
it's
not
really
about
who
wants
a
sidewalk
in
some
future
owner?
What
it's
about
is
the
city
requiring
a
sidewalk
to
be
put
on
private
property?
J
There
is
there's,
no
it's
just
not
ever
done,
I
mean
if
there's
a
complete
difference
between
private
property
and
a
street,
and
this
is
private
property.
The
last
thing
I
would
say
to
one
of
several
comments
is
that
there
was
a
reference
to
the
easements
on
the
plat
and
easement
does
not
require
you
to
do
anything.
An
easement
grants
the
right
to
do
whatever
you
call
the
easement
and
it
grants
you
the
right
to
if
you
wish
the
owner,
whoever
gets
that
easement
rights
and
those
are
the
four
owners
the
four
Lots
were
talking
about.
J
It
gives
them
the
right
to
put
in
a
sidewalk
if
they
wish
a
right
to
put
utilities
there
a
right
to
cross
over
that
access,
ingress
and
egress
does
not
require
you
to
install
a
sidewalk
or
require
you
to
install
utility.
So
there's
a
misunderstanding
about
what
that
easement
is
again,
I
think
what
happened
from
what
I
can
tell
them
from
the
testimony
from
mr.
Bischoff
and
mr.
Matthews,
it
appears
to
me
the
city
made
a
decision.
J
They
found
that
no
sidewalk
was
required
because
it
was
private
property
and
now
they've
decided
to
change
their
mind.
It's
really
not
fair.
It's
not
it's
not
consistent
with
their
previous
approvals,
and
it's
certainly
not
consistent
with
your
code.
That
says,
if
you're,
a
private
street
or
public
street
yes
put
in
the
sidewalks,
if
you're,
neither
one
of
those
which
is
what
we
are
no
sidewalk
is
required.
It's
therefore
I
again
I
would
respectfully
request
approval
of
the
sidewalk
for
all
the
properties.
J
C
I've
been
hanging
fire
for
a
while
I'd
like
to
make
a
few
comments.
If
I
could
there's
been
a
lot
of
finger-pointing,
coulda
woulda
shoulda,
whose
fault
was
it
was
the
city's
fault?
Was
it
the
private
property
developers?
Fault
I'd
like
to
focus
on
whether
the
sidewalk
on
this
particular
private
development
is
warranted
or
not.
I've
been
pushing
sidewalks
ever
since
I've
been
at
Tarpon
Springs,
at
least
on
one
side
of
the
right-of-way
public
right-of-way,
where
it's
needed
by
the
public.
C
I,
don't
see
this
as
a
as
a
major
public
walking
area,
it's
private
property,
the
private
right
away
is
I
believe
in
according
to
the
plat
says,
21
feet
in
width
in
some
cases,
in
other
cases
24
feet.
But
a
typical
road
street
is
12-foot
lanes.
That's
24
feet
of
of
a
street
which
is
in
pretty
bad
shape.
C
To
begin
with,
right
now
of
for
the
for
the
private
vehicular,
access
sidewalks
in
a
general
subdivision
are
built
in
public
right
away,
which
is
if
you're
building
a
development
with
the
standard
streets
and
drainage
and
so
forth.
You
have
what
say:
50
feet
of
public
right-of-way
kated,
which
12-feet
lanes
24
feet
of
roadway
for
the
vehicles,
then
there's
a
strip
of
grass
for
the
utilities
and
then
there's
a
sidewalk
utilities
were
streets,
water
and
a
sewer,
water,
sanitary
sewer,
storm
sewer,
water
and
cable
utility
and
then
the
sidewalk
and
then
private
property.
Sir.
C
So
getting
back
to
the
the
issue,
I
see
I
see
it
myself,
as
should
sidewalks,
be
built
in
this
property
and
forgetting
about
whose
fault
it
was.
There's
a
lot
of
blame
on
both
sides
and
I.
Don't
want
to
go
there
if
I
don't
have
to
as
I
see
it
it's
it's
a
private
subdivision.
The
owners
don't
want
the
sidewalk,
it's
not
going
to
be
used
by
the
public.
C
You
don't
put
sidewalks
on
private
property
for
public
use.
Typically,
when
you
build
a
subdivision,
you
put
the
sidewalks
in
the
public
right
away.
In
certain
cases,
interpreting
I'm
thinking
of
Peninsula
Avenue
near
the
high
school
we've
got
some
major,
just
there's
a
a
gap
or
a
gore
and
the
subdivision
descriptions
and
we
had
to
move
the
sidewalk
to
get
it
within
the
right-of-way
on
Peninsula
Road.
C
If
you
look,
if
you
go
down
Peninsula
Road,
you
see
the
sidewalk
moves
a
little
bit
because
it
was
initially
on
private
property
and
it
has
to
be
in
the
public
right
away.
I,
don't
know
where
I'm
going
with
this
I
would
just
like
to
focus
on.
Should
we
have
sidewalks
in
this
particular
subdivision
and
I?
C
C
G
Before
you
make
that
motion,
sir
I
took
a
look
at
the
sidewalk
trust
fund.
I,
don't
think
that
applies
here
for
two
reasons.
One
is
because
they've
specifically
came
to
the
Board
of
Adjustment
in
lieu
of
paying
into
the
trust
fund
and
to
the
way
the
code
reads,
and
perhaps
staff
can
back
me
up
on
this.
It
says
contributions.
A
sidewalk
trust
fund
in
lieu
of
construction
can
be
limited
to
the
construction
of
three
or
fewer
Lots,
and
we
are
more
than
three
here
so
I.
Don't
think
that
applies.
I.
B
You
bring
a
good
point
about
the
sidewalk
trust
fund,
so
our
application
is
for
eight
properties.
Yes,
was
the
applicant
aware
of
the
sidewalk
trust
fund
option
and
instead
of
maybe
putting
in
one
application
for
our
board
for
the
the
waiver
could
do
three
separate
three
three
two,
that's
math
right
for
the
sidewalk
trust
fund.
I
cannot.
G
Answer
you
if
they
were
aware
of
that,
I
can
just
tell
you
how
the
code
reads.
It
was
the
simultaneous
construction
of
three
or
fewer
Lots
I.
Believe
it's
eight.
At
the
same
time,
I
think
if
you
broke
them
up
like
that,
it
would
kind
of
defeat
the
purpose
of
what
the
code
is.
Writing,
because
then
everyone
would
just
break
everything
up
into
three
or
fewer
I.
Just.
G
C
J
C
G
C
M
C
M
House,
by
the
same
token,
the
police
department
can
drive
on
that
Street.
The
fire
department
destroy
from
what
I
understand
is
connected
to
the
city.
Now,
whoever
has
the
home
two
years
down
the
road
and
needs,
let's
say
the
traffic
on
that
street
is
tremendous
and
it's
a
sidewalk
to
go
with
his
will
or
her
wheelchair.
What
kind
of
position
will
the
city
be
for?
Who
will
be
responsible
from
the
eighth
pwnage.
G
Answer
your
question,
I
believe
is:
they
were
requesting
a
waiver
from
the
requirement
it
does
run
with
the
land.
It's
not
a
it's,
not
any
wave,
it's
not
something
that
prevents
them
from
ever.
They
could
decide
tomorrow
that
they
all
decide.
Actually,
let's
all
buy
it
bill
the
sidewalk.
Can
they
can
it's
not
permitting
it's?
It's
only
waiving
the
requirement
not
manding
that
they
can
never
does
that
make
sense.
The.
A
Your
question
is
regarding
the
homeowner
being
the
handicapped
person,
and
one
of
my
questions
was:
there
are
many
people
that
come
to
people's
homes,
whether
it's
a
if
somebody
has
a
flood
in
the
house,
the
insurance
adjuster
comes
to
the
house,
they
can
be
handicapped
and
they
would
have
to
be
able
to
have
access
to
a
house.
Well.
A
C
Okay,
so
there's
a
motion
on
the
floor.
No
second
yet,
but
one
of
the
applicants
here
is
agreed
to
pay
the
250
per
house
and
you
would
too
and
I
see
a
hand
waved
in
the
back.
That's
agreeable
do
and
your
name,
please
we'll
get
your
name
later,
but
all
right!
Mr.
Matthews,
would
you
be
willing
to
contribute
for
your
for
your
house
or
for
all
the
houses
that
are
not
represented
tonight,
just
for
your
house,
all
right!
So
there's
a
figure
of
250
per
lot
and
we're
not
sure
whether
it's
legal
or
not.
C
M
K
C
K
G
C
E
E
L
C
Kind
of
an
aside
on
the
corner
of
Riverside
and
sunset,
there
is
a
house
that
asked
for
a
sidewalk
paver
in
here
35
years
ago.
The
staff
recommended
approval
and
it
was
denied
and
you
to
this
day,
you'll
see
this
sidewalk.
That
goes
nowhere
in
front
of
one
house,
whatever
benefit
that
may
be.
Mr.
right,
I
was.
C
Again,
I
think
the
people
will
live
there.
It's
a
private
private
right
of
way,
not
dedicated
to
the
city,
private
and
the
sidewalk
would
be
on
private
property,
not
even
in
the
private
easement
area,
which
is
only
24
feet
in
width.
Normally,
it's
50
feet
of
minimum
to
be
in
a
public
subdivision,
50
feet,
I,
think
that
correct
Louis's
60
feet
50
feet,
yeah.
H
J
E
E
K
Another
question:
just
just
for
you,
no
significant
substantial
I,
think
there's
a
statement
in
the
background
from
the
staff
report
saying
the
fact
that
the
staff
erred
by
not
requiring
the
sidewalks
to
be
shown
on
the
site
plans
for
the
individual
lot
does
not
relieve
the
applicant
of
the
requirements
of
this.
That
to
me,
is
an
opinion
of
the
staff
and
I'm
wondering
what
ramifications
that
could
have
going
forward.
If
any
of
these
motions
are
even
talked
about
or
approved,
it's
just.
K
C
Sorry
saying
there's
this
some
estoppel
language
and
the
fact
the
city
did
not
do
something
and
therefore
that
there
is
some
grounds
for
granting
the
waiver
and
we're
talking
about
a
waiver
which
is
less
of
a
standard
than
of
variance
I,
want
to
make
sure
we're
all
clear
on
that.
There's
no
hardship
requirement
in
a
waiver
just
is
it
unreasonable
or
unwarranted,
is
what
the
language
used
to
stay
in
the
sidewalk
waiver,
the
language
in
the
plat.
C
By
the
way
for
the
you
know
various
uses
of
the
easement
area,
that's
a
standard
boilerplate
language
for
the
streets,
drainage
sidewalks
in
school
I.
Wouldn't
that
he
can't
hang
your
hat
on
the
fact
that,
well,
it
says
you
could
put
a
sidewalk
in,
and
here
it
doesn't
mean
you
have
to
put
a
sidewalk
in
here.
I.
Concur
with
the
applicants
representative
on
that.
Alright.
So
there's
a
motion,
a
second
further
discussion,
seeing
hearing
none,
let's
have
a
roll
call.
Please
miss.
A
B
C
I
C
I
C
K
A
C
A
M
A
There
are
situations
that
I
was
maybe
you're
aware
of,
but
I
wasn't
aware
of
that,
like
a
case
like
this
or
any
of
the
cases
that
we're
not
allowed
to
be
discussed,
seeing
them
for
30
days
because
of
appeal,
they
can't
appeal
so
there
were
am
I
correct
in
that,
but
the
we're
not
allowed
to
discuss
the
cases.
It's.
A
J
E
A
B
G
G
A
I
was
instructed
not
to
take
the
call
and
just
make
the
hang
up,
and
you
know
say
sorry:
I
can
speak
of
that
and
just
end
it
there.
You
know,
of
course,
I
thought
that
if
I
said
nothing
particular
to
the
case
that
that
was
allowed,
and
it's
not
so
you
know
you
you
do
need
to
you
know.
I
would
like
to
hear
more
about
what
I
shouldn't
shouldn't
do.
Yeah.
K
I
I
would
agree
because
I'm
still
not
sure
of
the
actual
legal
ramifications
of
a
staff
error
right.
If
there's
a
staff
error,
what
does
that
really
mean
legally,
and
we
consider
that?
Can
we
not
consider
that
is
that
substantial
significant
if
there
is
an
agreement,
that
the
staff
made
an
error
in
something
in.
A
General
I
do
want
to
explain
something
all
of
the
permits
that
go
through
the
city
here.
The
engineer
that
a
looks
over
the
plans
and
approves
the
plans
clearly
states
on
it
that
he
or
she
is
not
responsible
for
any
errors
that
they've
made
I'm
just
saying
that
on
the
plans,
so
it
all
falls
always
on
the
builder
developer
whomever
so
they
could
actually
completely
ignore
something
not
include
something
and
there's
no
bearing
on
the
staff.
Well,.
K
In
and
you
know,
we
can
talk
about
Sunshine,
Law
and
everything,
but
I
know
I
was
never
trained
in
what
the
conditions
actually
I
was
never
instructed
as
to
you
know,
putting
a
condition
and
what,
if
it's
standard,
boilerplate
that
you're
supposed
to
cover
any
other
thing?
Okay,
this
would
be
on
any
other
thing.
Should
that
be
considered
or
not
considered,
a
significant
substantial
did
that
that
number
one
condition
was
that
legally
a
catch-all,
and
you
can
call
it
a
catch-all,
but
that's
what
catch-all
do?
Was
they
catch
everything?
K
K
A
C
F
B
C
M
A
B
C
Just
want
the
minister
reflect
that
there
was
a
very
tough
decision
for
this
board.
There
were
I,
think
four
votes
on
this
one
item,
the
first
time
there
was
a
motion
and
no
second,
no,
there
was
no
motion
and
then
the
second
time
there
was
a
motion
deny,
and
there
was
no
motion.
We
couldn't
decide
what
to
do.
When
I
came
up
for
rehearing,
we
had
some
difficulty
and
there
was
some
fault
on
the
part
of
the
staff
and
the
board
passed
the
motion
to
grant
the
variance
it
was
3
to
2
vote.
C
C
I
know,
but
we
have
this
constitutional
provision
called
equal
protection
and
if,
if
someone
comes
in
say
my
neighbor
got
lni,
why
can't
I
and
they
have
to
prove
unique
situation
and
there
they
just
say
I
want
even
like,
because
I
have
family
coming
to
visit.
That's
not
enough.
What
was
different
in
that
case
were
the
unique
facts
that
we
had
some
trouble
with,
and
we
decided
to
grant
the
variance
and.