►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment January 24, 2018
Description
Description
A
C
E
E
C
Under
the
rules
of
procedure,
the
Chairman
is
a
permitted
to
deviate
from
the
items
listed
on
the
agenda
for
exigent
circumstances,
there's
been
a
request
to
request
actually
to
change
the
order
and
with
the
consent
of
everybody,
we're
going
to
put
number
six
first
38
Kramer
Avenue.
First
after
we
get
to
our
procedural
items
and
then
number
seven
123
or
119,
depending
on
how
you're,
counting
North,
Florida
Avenue
that'll
be
second
and
then
Village,
Drive,
third
and
Athenian
way.
Fourth,
Ted.
Okay,
everybody
all
right!
Thank
you
appreciate
that.
C
The
next
the
agenda
is
election
of
officers
quit
with
it
at
the
end
and
also
the
minutes.
Normally
it
comes
at
the
beginning
per
our
rules
of
procedure.
We
can't
change
that
the
commissioners
consent,
so
it
has
to
be
at
least
listed
as
first,
but
let's
put
the
minutes
back
at
the
end,
if
we
could
all
right
so
then,
let's
start
off
with
our
quasi
judicial
announcement
from
legal
council.
Please.
G
Wear
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
contained
in
the
Code
of
Ordinances
make
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
before
it.
G
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
at
this
hearing
that
the
law
considers
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
to
the
issues.
If
the
confident,
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.
F
G
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,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
against
the
applicant.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
board
wishing
to
disclose
any
conflicts
of
interest
or
ex
parte
communications
this
evening?
G
F
C
We
normally
work,
the
staff
will
present
its
case
and
then
the
applicant
can
present
its
case.
There's
cross-examination
anybody
can
cross-examine
if
you
like
any
comments
from
the
other
side,
and
then
the
Board
of
Adjustment
can
ask
questions
from
the
staff
or
from
the
applicants.
Any
public
comments
are
next
and
then
rebuttal
by
either
side,
applicants
or
opponents
and
staff
can
rebut,
and
then
we
close
the
public
hearing
and
have
the
Commission
or
the
board
pass
a
motion
and
consider
that
motion.
If
on
occasion
we
are
allowed
to
reopen
the
public
hearing.
C
If
anything,
the
Board
says
is
of
some
concern
to
the
applicants
and
just
raise
your
hand
and
we'll
probably
allow
you
to
speak,
even
though
the
public
hearing
has
been
closed
as
a
courtesy
to
everybody.
So,
let's
start
off
with
number
six
on
our
agenda:
38,
Kramer
Avenue:
it's
a
variance
to
reduce
the
front
yard
and
severe
yard
setbacks
for
a
single-family
dwelling.
I'm
just
gonna
make
the
presentation.
H
As
mentioned,
this
is
an
application
to
authorize
a
variance
to
reduce
the
front
yard
and
throw
yard
setback
in
order
to
accommodate
a
single-family
residence.
The
location
is
39,
Kramer
Avenue,
the
applicant
is
equity
trust
company.
This
is
a
property
built
in
1951
occupied
by
an
existing
dilapidated
structure.
The
applicant
wishes
to
replace
that
structure
with
with
a
new
residence.
H
The
current
residence
is
non-conforming
with
respect
to
front
and
rear
setbacks.
If
you
would
refer
to
page
2
of
the
staff
report,
you'll
see
a
table
that
compares
the
district
setbacks.
The
current
the
setbacks
for
the
current
structure
and
the
proposed
setbacks
for
the
new
structure
or
front
in
rear
this
some
property
is,
has
an
irregular
shape.
It's
a
hundred
and
twenty
five
feet
wide.
It's
some
a
good
deal
wider
than
it
is
deep.
H
It
is
if
you're
looking
at
the
property
from
the
street,
it's
some
about
eighty
seven
feet
deep
on
the
north
or
left
side,
and
then
it
goes
out
to
109
feet
deep
on
the
south
or
right
side.
At
the
same
time
as
you
as
you're,
going
from
Northwest
to
southeast,
the
property
has
a
sloping
to
topography
with
a
significant
downward
slope
at
that
southeast
corner,
so
that
physical
condition,
sort
of
pushes
or
limits
that
the
building
area
up
to
the
northwest
portion
of
the
property.
H
H
There
were
no
public
responses,
received
staff
recommended
findings
of
fact
for
the
record,
starting
on
page
four
number
one:
the
applicant
wishes
to
demolish
an
existing
dilapidated
single-family
residence
and
build
a
new
residence
on
the
subject.
Property
number
two:
the
existing
single-family
residence
is
non-conforming
with
respect
to
front
and
rear
setbacks.
The
newly
proposed
residence
would
continue
this
nonconformity,
but
would
reduce
it
by
about
six
percent
number
three.
H
The
subject
property
is
irregularly,
shaped
and
has
a
steep
sloping
topography
that
makes
it
unique
when
compared
with
other
properties
in
this
zoning
district
and
also
limits
options
for
laying
on
a
cycling
or
single-family
residence
similar
to
the
existing
residents
in
the
neighboring
residences.
It
is
concluded
that
the
requested
variance
does
arise
out
of
physical
and
environmental
characteristics
of
the
property
that
are
unique
to
the
zoning
district
number
for
the
condition
and
the
property
for
which
the
variance
is
requested
has
not
been
self
created,
and
it's
not
the
result
of
an
action
by
the
applicant.
H
The
condition
is
related
to
the
shape
and
topography
of
the
property
itself
number
five.
Littoral
enforcement
of
the
front
and
rear
setbacks
would
prevent
construction
that
would
prevent
construction
of
a
single-family
home
of
a
size
and
layout
that
meets
minimum
district
requirements
and
is
comparable
to
single-family
homes
located
elsewhere
in
this
zoning
district
and
would
therefore
denied
the
applicant
reasonable
use
of
the
property
number
six
granting
of
the
variance
would
not
confer
on
the
applicant
any
special
privileges
not
allowed
for
other
properties
in
this
district,
either
with
respect
to
the
use
or
the
layout.
H
Since
there
are
several
single-family
residences
in
the
immediate
area,
with
non-conforming
setbacks
in
number,
seven
granting
of
the
variance
would
not
injure
or
impact
the
rights
of
owners
of
affected
properties
or
create
a
nuisance
or
otherwise
substantially
negatively.
Impact
surrounding
properties
and
surrounding
properties
are
occupied
with
single-family
homes,
several
of
which
have
nonconformity
similar
to
the
subject
line.
H
I
B
I
There's
been
a
sequence:
maybe
the
Grahams
can
help
me
here,
but
there
was
a
sequence:
it
was
a
larger
house.
Much
of
it
was
simply
demolished.
There's
a
small
structure
there.
Currently
this,
which
is
the
dilapidated
part,
we're
still
talking
about
that.
We're
gonna
we're
talking
about
removing
David.
Do
you
know
roughly
the
square
footage
of
that
I'm?
Sorry
I,
have
it
on
a
on
a
plan
here.
J
J
J
What
we're
purchasing
to
build
it
was
originally
intended
to
renovate
in,
and
the
damage
to
the
structure
is
too
severe
and
going
to
be
too
expensive
to
renovate,
as
opposed
to
replace
and
bring
it
up
to
the
current
codes.
In
addition,
we're
trying
to
keep
the
same
footprint
that
basically
was
there
before
because
of
the
slope
of
the
lot.
It
challenges
you
for
fill
and
then
you've
got
runoff
issues
on
the
neighbors
and
stuff
pushing
the
house
to
the
back
of
the.
B
J
I
Can
you
get
in
the
microphone
I'm?
Sorry,
you
can
see
the
depth
of
the
house
in
this.
This
example
that
we've
we've
laid
out
here
and
you
can
see
it's
the
the
depth-
is
not
really
unreasonable
for
a
typical
house.
As
she
said,
the
north-south
dimensions
aren't
an
issue,
but
the
front-to-back
is
an
issue.
B
Why
I'm
asking
this
question
is
because
in
here
it
says
that
this
is
generally
the
order
of
1400
square
feet
to
2,000
square
feet
in
the
area
and
I'm.
Looking
at
a
house
that
was
from
what
you're
telling
me
3000
square-feet.
That
also
now
could
be
anywhere
between
2500
and
3000.
So
my
question
next
would
be:
is
this
a
normal
size
for
that
street
I?
Think.
I
I
C
C
L
K
I
C
I
I
F
D
B
D
A
C
C
H
Thank
you,
application
to
authorize
a
variance
to
increase
the
total
width
for
a
circular
driveway
beyond
the
maximum
allowable
the
applicant
owner
is
Tom
is
Thomas
C
and
Vassy
M
Harris,
as
mentioned
this,
is
it
located
at
123,
Northbourne
Avenue,
a
single-family
home
was
constructed
on
the
property
pursuant
to
a
duly
pulled
building
permit.
With
a
circular
driveway
that
was
proposed
at
a
total
of
28
feet,
there
was
20
feet
allocated
to
the
north
portion
of
the
driveway.
H
Completion
of
the
home
and
inspection
for
certificate
of
occupancy,
the
driveways
was
measured,
which
is
that
is
when
that
takes
place
and
was
found
to
be
a
total
of
31
feet
with
the
Northland
access
point
measuring
22
point
9
feet
and
the
southern
access
point
measuring
8.1
feet.
The
driveway
is
constructed
of
pavers.
The
review
criteria
for
variances
listed
variances
is
listed,
and
if
you
have
any
questions
on
those
details,
we
can
answer
those.
H
This
was
dueling
noticed
and
we
did
not
get
any
public
letters
from
the
public
or
anyone
staff
recommended
findings
of
fact
by
the
record
number
one.
The
applicant
applied
for
and
received
a
city
city
building,
permit
number
17
1500
to
construct
the
single-family
home
with
driveway
number
2.
The
city's
final
inspection
birth
certificate
of
occupancy
revealed
that
the
built
driveway
is
a
total
of
31
feet
in
width
3
feet
wider
than
the
permitted
28
feet,
which
is
the
maximum
allowable
by
the
land
development
code
number
3.
H
The
requested
variance
does
not
arise
out
of
physical
characteristics
of
the
property
or
surrounding
area
number
4.
The
condition
on
the
property
for
which
the
variance
is
requested
has
resulted
from
an
action
by
the
applicant
from
the
five
littoral
enforcement
of
the
driveway
width
requirement
of
the
land
development
code
would
require
the
applicant
to
modify
the
project
as
it
currently
exists
in
order
to
achieve
the
permitted
layout
and
comply
with
the
code
required
width
number.
H
Six
granting
of
the
variance
would
confer
in
the
applicant
special
privileges
not
allowed
for
other
properties
in
the
zoning
district
in
the
form
of
a
wider
driveway
number
seven,
granting
the
single
variance
would
not
injure
or
impact
the
rights
of
owners
of
affected
properties
or
create
a
nuisance
or
otherwise
substantially
negatively
impact
surrounding
properties.
However,
if
this
type
of
variances
work
variants
were
granted
to
multiple
properties,
the
neighborhood
and
public
interest
would
be
negatively
impacted,
and
that
is
expanded
upon
in
the
arterial
staff
recommendation
based
on
the
materials
submitted
by
the
applicant.
H
C
C
G
Far
as
that,
what
we
spoke
about
earlier,
if
there's
no
evidence
that-
and
you
can
certainly
ask
questions
about
that-
my
opinion
is,
then
it
would
move
forward
because
the
evidence
might
show
that's
been
taken
care
of.
If
this
board
wishes
make
the
motion
and
not
have
this,
concerns
of
that
nature
can.
C
You
speak
in
the
microphone.
Let
me
let
me
excuse
me
for
an
opening.
The
question
is
that
our
rules
require
that
the
property
be
posted
with
a
placard
in
addition
to
the
ad
and
newspaper
and
the
notice
to
the
adjacent
property
owners
by
mail
and
I've,
been
by
there
several
times
over
the
past
week
or
two
and
the
yellow
sign
the
permit.
G
First
of
all,
while
I
appreciate
that
you've,
driven
by
the
property,
what
you
set
is
not
considered
testimony,
so
it's
not
evidence
to
to
whether
or
not
that
posting
or
that
was
there.
So
if
there
is
no
evidence
that
supports
that
that
placard
has
fallen,
and
you
can
certainly
ask
any
witnesses
that
you
can,
then
my
recommendation
would
be
that
we
move
forward.
However,
as
the
board.
If
that's
what
you
want
to
do,
obviously
you're
within
your
right
to
do
it,
but
my
advice
would
be
if
there's
no
evidence
to
the
contrary.
M
M
O
G
M
H
C
P
G
C
M
Thank
you
board
members
for
allowing
us
to
come
and
present
this.
So
we
we
had
built
the
home
for
father
no
Theseus
and
his
family,
and
we
originally
had
permitted
the
house
with
a
single
driveway.
It's
a
three-car,
Garage
home
and
it
did
not
have
a
circular
driveway
when
we
originally
permitted
it.
But
soon
after
we
started
construction,
there
was
notice
by
the
homeowners
that
there
was
a
lot
of
traffic
on
Florida
Avenue
at
certain
times.
M
Specifically,
you
know
you
have
three
schools
in
the
area
that
let
out
and
begin
in
the
morning
and
let
out
in
the
afternoon
you
have
a
public
park.
That's
also
on
that
collector's
road
there
Florida
Avenue.
So
at
times
the
traffic
gets
pretty
horrendous.
In
fact,
I
was
taking
my
granddaughter
to
school
this
morning
and
dropping
her
off
and
there
was
this
traffic
platooning
by
that
house
and
a
continuous
stream.
So
there
was
concern
about
the
danger
of
backing
out
onto
a
collector
street.
It's
it's
a
valid
concern.
M
You
know,
that's
you
know,
there's
children
on
the
sidewalk
as
well
coming
to
and
from
school
as
well.
So
it's
it's
a
dangerous
situation,
so
they
asked
about
pursuing
a
circular,
driveway
and
I
want
to
pass
out
if
I
could
a
the
original
drawing
that
was
turned
in
for
the
circular
driveway
that
was
approved
and
and
from
that
I
think
it'll
become
evident
what
the
issues
were
and
by
the
way
we
didn't
create
the
traffic
on
Florida
Avenue.
So
that
wasn't
something
created
by
the.
M
M
It's
ninety
six
point,
three,
eight
foot
along
the
road
which
a
third
of
that
is
a
over
32
feet.
However,
the
the
ordinance
limits,
the
width,
the
28
and
I
believe
that
maybe
when
the
ordinance
was
written,
they
didn't
really
anticipate
the
idea
that
of
three-car
garages
at
the
time
they
were
thinking
more
of
what
you
would
do
with
a
two-car
garage
and
a
circular
driveway,
and
with
that
you
would,
you
would
be
able
to
accomplish
that
in
28
feet.
That's
gorge,.
M
That's
okay,
so
when
when
the
driveway
was
constructed,
you'll
see
that
there
was
a
sliver
of
three
feet
that
was
added
to
the
2
car
garage
side
so
that
when
you
backed
out
of
that
garage,
you
weren't
backing
across
Assad
and
yard
and
you
could
maneuver
into
that
driveway
properly
instead
of
having
to
make
a
severe
maneuver
to
get
into
the
two-car
driveways.
So
that's
where
the
three
feet
got
added
by
the
paver
contractor
I
guess
he
was
just
doing
common-sense
pavers
instead
of
following
exactly
what
the
approved
plan
was.
He
did.
M
Yes,
so
to
answer
the
question
that
was
asked
by
the
board
member
was
the
area
we're
talking
about.
Is
the
distance
between
the
blue
dotted
line
to
the
right
and
what
was
the
red
line?
Only
the
white
portion,
because
the
rest
of
it
was
already
permitted.
So
it's
a
73
square
feet
is
what
that
comes
up
to
be,
and
it
was
only
done
not
done.
M
You
know
in
a
purposeful
attempt
to
you
know
just
play
blatantly
violate
the
ordinance
it
was
done
to
make
the
driveway
usable
and
also
to
avoid
traffic
accidents
of
backing
out
on
to
Florida
Avenue.
It's
a
collector
Street
there's
a
lot
of
traffic
on
it,
particularly
in
that
area
of
it
the
other
side,
the
the
circular
side
is
8.1
feet,
which
is
barely
enough
to
keep
your
tires
on
on
the
driveway
that
really
that
Lane
should,
by
all
rights,
be
at
10
feet
to
make
a
proper
circular
driveway
lane.
M
It
starts
out
at
10
feet
and
narrows
down
to
8
feet,
and
it
actually
became
a
point
one.
The
way
they
measured
it,
but
again
that's
the
very
minimum
size
Lane.
You
could
possibly
have
to
get
a
full
sized
vehicle
into
the
driveway
again,
you
know
we
didn't
create
the
we
didn't
create
the
traffic
issue
on
Florida
Avenue.
That
was
there.
M
You
know
when
we
built
the
home
and
they're
just
trying
to
have
a
safe
way
to
get
in
and
out
of
their
their
property
and-
and
the
fact
is,
is
it's
one
third
of
the
width
is
greater
than
the
31
feet.
So,
although
I
know
the
code,
the
the
code
says
28
I,
don't
think
that
that's.
Why
we're
here
for
variance.
M
M
M
O
O
M
P
O
O
H
The
the
ordinance
doesn't
take
into
account
what
happens
after
you,
the
the
width.
The
driveway
is
measured
at
the
right-of-way
line.
Once
you
get
past
the
right-of-way
line
on
to
the
property,
there
are
no
restrictions
on
the
width
of
the
driveway,
so
in
this
case
it
widens
out
that's
why
it
can
widen
out
so
I
think
you're
you're
discussing
the
three-car
Garage
relative
to
the
width
of
the
driveway.
O
M
True,
the
ordinance
limits
you
to
28,
but
again
we're
here
for
variance
because
I,
don't
think
the
variance-
and
you
know
really
considered
the
idea
of
a
three-car
garage
with
a
circular
driveway.
If
this
lot
was,
you
know,
80
feet
deeper
or
60
feet
deeper.
You
could
probably
narrow
it
at
the
approach
and
then
widen
it
out
and
still
be
able
to
maneuver
in
and
out
of
the
garages,
but
so
this
this
is
a
condition.
It's
specific
to
this
lot
and
many
of
the
Lots
in
that
area.
M
B
To
go
out
on
a
limb
here,
this
is
exactly
what
I
brought
up
last
night
about
a
law
being
changed,
but
as
I
say
that
I
want
you
to
know
that
we're
restricted
by
our
own
rules.
We
are
not
allowed
to
change
legislation.
We
are
not
allowed
to
make
legislation.
We
have
to
go
by
exactly
what
you're
presenting
to
us
versus
the
ordinances
that
we
have
to
go
by
so
on
paper.
I
am
very
well
aware
that
a
double
car,
garage
or
driveway
should
be
20
feet.
B
Probably
if
you
had
flared
these
in
instead
of
out,
you
would
have
been
the
only
ones
that
do
pavers
like
that,
but
you
would
have
gone
within
our
ordinance,
which
I
believe
needs
to
change
to
accommodate
people
such
as
yourself,
but
myself
as
a
board
member
and
probably
all
the
board
members.
The
problem
we
have
is
to
decide
whether
we're
gonna
deal
in
logic.
M
Well,
I
mean
we're
here
for
variance
and
the
reason
that
you
can't
comply
with
the
ordinance
are
the
reasons
that
we're
proposing
of
why
we
built
that
driveway
wider
than
it
can
be
by
ordinance.
That's
I
think
the
variance
process
is
because
we're
seeking
to
deviate
from
the
ordinance.
The
lot
is
the
depth
that
it
is.
M
We
can't
change
that
and
didn't
create
that
it's
a
three-car
Garage
House
and
in
order
for
it
to
function
properly,
it
has
to
be
31
feet
minimum,
so
we're
seeking
the
minimum
relief
required
to
allow
this
to
be
built
and,
and
so
I
don't
see
where
we're
not
really
meeting
the
requirements
of
the
variance
standards
you
know
of
what
we're
applying
you
can
you
know
you
can
fit
standards
any
way
you
want
and
there's
ways
to
justify
it.
You,
you
can
build
a
6,000
square
feet
of
impervious
area
on
a
irregular
shape.
Lot.
M
You
know
and
you
can
make
it
you
can
make
a
argument
for
why
that's
a
great
idea,
but
does
it
really
fit
the
criteria?
You
know?
One
of
the
arguments
in
here
was
that
it
was
going
to
create
more
runoff
from
the
73
feet
of
extra
impervious
area
where
we
just
went
and
took
a
and
and
I
like
Eddie,
Hoffman's
designs
and
I
love.
M
It
and
I
think
he's
gonna
do
a
beautiful
job
on
that
house,
but
you
took
a
lot
that
has
30
230
1.83
square
feet
of
impervious
area
on
it
now
and
you're
gonna
create
a
house
that
has
60
489
square
feet
of
impervious
area.
So
if
you're
really
talking
about
drainage,
you
need
to
talk
about
it
consistently,
amongst
all
of
the
times
that
you
apply
the
variant
standards,
not
just
on
some
and
not
on
the
other.
M
A
Of
fact,
number
seven
granting
of
this
single
variance
would
not
injure
or
impact
the
rights
of
owners
of
affected
properties
or
create
a
nuisance
or
otherwise
substantially
negatively
impact
surrounding
property
period.
Then
it
says,
however,
if
this
type
of
variance
were
granted
to
multiple
properties,
the
neighborhood
and
Public
Interest
would
be
negatively
impacted,
and
he
explained
that.
H
H
The
some
of
the
reasons
that
you
have
for
driveway
widths
for
limiting
driveway
widths
are
a
public
benefit
based
on
whatever
the
standards
are
drainage,
roadway,
the
configuration
of
the
roadway
maintenance
of
the
roadway
and
other
reasons.
So,
as
mr.
Stamos
stated,
and
we
stated
in
the
staff
report,
one
driveway
is
not
going
to
create
a
huge
runoff
problem.
We
have
to
look
at
this
as
a
variance
to
a
criteria
for
anybody
on
that
street
or
in
that
zoning
district.
That
would
come
in
for
that
variance.
A
A
G
A
M
There's
really
no
other
Lots
that
I
know
of
all
on
there
that
have
93
feet
of
frontage,
where
a
third
of
that
frontage
actually
is
less.
You
know
it's
more
than
the
driveway
we
built.
So
if
you're
talking
about
a
ratio
or
proportion
of
drainage
to
frontage
I,
think
this
one
Falls
probably
way
under
on
a
ratio
to
a
50-foot
lot
with
a
28
foot
driveway
on
it
or
a
50
foot
lock
with
a
20
foot
driveway
on
it
for
that
matter.
O
K
M
K
F
K
M
P
M
K
M
Just
you
have
to
think
about
the
timing
of
it,
the
driveways
the
last
thing
to
go
in
and
then
your
final
survey
gets
done,
probably
five
days
later
and
turned
in
for
your
CEO,
so
it
wasn't
like
it
sat
there
for
three
months
built
and
we
just
went
in
at
the
last
minute
with
with
the
as-built
and
said:
oh
yeah,
we
knew
about
it
for
three
months.
It
was
the
last
it's.
The
last
thing
that
you
do
on
the
outside.
The
house
is
driveway
sod,
landscape
and
irrigation.
B
K
A
chance
here
we
had
another
one
where
the
concrete
was
approved
by
the
building
inspector
and
it
was
actually
incorrectly
approved,
and
then
the
poor
was
made.
This
was
this
wasn't
built
yet,
and
the
decision
was
made
to
go
ahead
and
widen
it
on
their
own
volition,
without
checking
with
the
homeowner
with
with
the
home.
M
We're
here
for
an
after-the-fact
variants,
there's
no
question
about
that:
it
happened.
What
like
I
said:
it
wasn't
willful,
but
it
but
honestly
in
in
retrospect.
That's
the
drive
way.
Doesn't
work
and
I.
Think
the
paver
guy
realized
that
when
he
was
building
the
driveway
and
built
that
the
way
we
would
normally
build
a
driveway.
If.
P
M
K
And
I
don't
want
to
be
trust
me
I,
don't
want
to
be
argumentative,
I
understand
the
situation,
but
if
you're
saying
that
the
safety
of
the
community
is
affected
by
that
dimension
right
there,
it
would
appear
that
and
you're
saying
backing
out
into
traffic
I
think
people
would
use
the
other
side
of
the
driveway
you'd
back
out
of
the
garage
into
your
driveway
and
then
pull
forward
and
use
the
8
foot
exit.
You
wouldn't
be
trying
to
back
all
the
way
out
of
that
driveway
onto
Florida
Avenue.
Isn't
that
isn't
that
kind
of
the
logic?
K
M
M
P
M
Just
not
enough
not
of
distance
between
the
road
and
the
driveway
to
make
us
it's
a
maneuver
like
that
and
stay
off
of
your
grass
because
it
has
to
cut
over
I
mean
you
can't
cut
over
90
degrees.
You
got
a
transition
between
the
with
you
come
off
of
the
right-of-way
at
and
where
you
get
to
the
garage
door.
That.
K
F
F
K
K
M
O
M
M
But
you've
got
25
feet
from
the
garage
to
the
right
away
lines.
So
at
the
right-of-way
line
you
have,
if
you
have
to
be
at
20,
and
you
have
to
get
to
23
by
the
time-
and
you
got
a
20
foot
long
car
18,
20
foot
long
car
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
easily
make
that
maneuver
you
will
be,
will
be
on
the
grass
you'll,
be
off
the
driveway.
O
C
My
turn
we've
had
this
kind
of
variance
before
several
times
last
couple
of
years.
I've
asked:
is
there
any
rationale
for
this
driveway
width,
minimum
ordinance
and
I'm
hearing
something
tonight
for
the
first
time
that
there's
some
aesthetic
value?
Is
that
correct
I
thought
it
might?
Is
it
for
us
that
X
is
it
for
safety
I've,
seen
a
number
of
strive
ways
in
this
community
that
have
wider
than
28
feet,
including
my
own
and
several
other
nice
areas
in
the
community,
other
communities
that
have
very
wide
driveways?
C
H
So,
there's
all
different
things
on
the
books.
The
reason
for
limiting
a
driveway
with
you
know
there
are
several
reasons.
I
suppose
was
part
of
it
may
have
to
do
with
the
right-of-way
and
city
maintenance
of
the
right-of-way
drainage,
aesthetics,
to
some
extent
safety
and
access.
Those
sorts
of
things
could
be
that
it
was
adopted
as
the
minimum
that
could
accommodate
you
know
what
was
thought
of
for
the
needs
of
vehicles,
as
the
city
saw
it
at
the
time.
There
may
be
several
reasons
and
those
can
be
researched.
C
I
understand
but
again
like
in
the
past
I've
asked
this
question:
it's
the
width
of
the
driveways,
only
measured
at
the
right-of-way,
so
a
few
pavers
could
be
removed
at
the
right-of-way
point,
and
only
that
point
so
that
there's
only
28
feet
instead
of
31
feet.
Is
that
correct
and
just
and
they
would
be
in
compliance.
It's
only
measured
at
the
right-of-way
line
and
nothing
further.
C
Next
question
of
the
staff
I
believe
in
be
legal
council.
This
concerns
the
contractors
error
and
we
have
a
special
provision
of
the
code
that
was
brought
up
last
month.
I
wasn't
here
where
there
are
special
factors
we
can
consider.
If
it's
contractors
error
made
in
good
faith
and
my
question
of
staff
or
legal
counsel,
are
we
in
that
position
at
this
time.
H
H
H
Of
the
various
criteria,
it
reads
in
the
highly
unusual
circumstance
where
we're
number
one:
the
property
owner
Bontrager,
has
made
a
mistake
in
the
construction
of
the
structure
and
it
would
be
economically
impracticable
to
correct
the
mistake.
At
the
time
it
was
discovered.
Number
2,
the
appropriate
building
permit
or
other
use
permit
has
been
had
been
issued.
Number
3
such
mistake
could
not
have
been
avoided
by
the
application
of
normal
construction
or
business
practices
and
number
4.
H
G
C
H
C
L
Q
Q
The
very
fact
that
we
have
a
variance
process
allows
this
board
to
make
the
variance
based
on
our
conversation
tonight
so
I'm,
not
quite
sure
why
we're
saying
the
code
cannot
be
varied
from
because
that's
why
we're
here?
It's
the
entire
process.
The
board
is
given
that
authority
to
make
the
variance
and
that's
why
it's
called
the
variance
hearing.
Q
B
Q
But
in
genuine
sincerity,
look
if
my
wife
knew
that
we
were
talking
28
instead
of
31
she'd
rather
have
35,
because
we're
already
driving
over
our
lawn
because
of
that
8-foot
section
on
this
on
the
circle.
We're
not
asking
to
go
above
the
1/3.
But
the
truth
is
it's
a
96
foot
frontage
and
for
a
code
to
say,
1/3
and
then
to
further
claim,
but
not
to
exceed
28
I,
believe
there
is
sufficient
give
in
the
ordinance
to
say
so
far
as
we
are
in
the
1/3.
G
L
G
B
A
question
I
have
a
statement.
I
would
like
to
say
in
the
discussion
that
we've
had
what
I
heard
you
say
was
that
there
was
no
questioning
from
the
favorite
company
or
whoever
did
that
that
to
make
it
a
certain
size,
he
just
followed
it
and
he
did
that
extra
and
the
father
didn't
ask
Berto,
and
anybody
didn't
ask
for
that.
Yeah.
M
P
In
going
with
the
highly
unusual
circumstance
which
was
just
passed
to
you,
sir,
it's
so
talking
about
the
mistake
of
construction
of
the
structure.
So
it's
our
discussion
of
was
this
a
mistake
economically
impractical,
but
the
point
that
I'm
looking
at
is
not
to
be
avoided.
Could
this
have
been
avoided?
I
think
absolutely
it
could
have
been
avoided
if
you
had
followed
if
the
contractor
had
followed
the
plans
which
were
submitted
and
approved
by
the
building
department.
Oh.
M
O
M
M
A
A
G
C
F
A
C
B
G
K
C
K
C
G
Gonna
go
to
the
City
Commission;
it
would
first
have
to
go
through
Planning
and
Zoning.
Planning
and
Zoning
would
then
have
to
hear
it.
Then
it
would
have
to
go
through
a
first
reading
and
a
second
reading,
which
would
take
several
months
so
before
that
can
happen.
Since
the
applicant
is
here,
the
applicant
would
have
to
agree
to
continue
it.
Otherwise
you
are
stepping
on
his
due
process.
We're.
O
O
Aside
from
the
Planning
Board
or
anything,
the
consensus
was
last
night,
whichever
case
we
have
an
opponent.
This
one
is
one
of
them
write
up
a
memorandum
with
the
case
number
and
everything
in
the
facts
and
give
it
to
the
city
manager.
The
city
manager
will
present
it
to
the
city
permission.
Okay.
That
was
the
direct
way
of
doing
this.
First.
G
There
was
no
consensus
had
last
night.
It
was
simply
a
discussion
topic.
Second,
there
was
nothing
about
a
specific
case
in
the
memorandum
going
to
the
city
manager.
I
believe
what
the
city
manager
said
was
that
if
this
board
thought
that
there
was
some
code
that
was
disagreed
with
that
you
could
bring
that
to
Heather
over
there.
The
director
was
planning
and
zoning.
G
She
could
then
go
ahead
and
bring
that
to
the
city
manager,
and
then
the
city
manager,
in
his
discretion,
would
bring
that
to
the
Commission
and
the
Commission
in
their
discretion
could
choose
whether
or
not
they
wanted
to
hear
it
or
not.
The
whole
thing
is
moot.
If
the
applicant
doesn't
want
to
continue
this
application
you
can,
regardless
of
this
application,
you
can
still
bring
your
concern
to
Heather
and
have
that
moved
up
the
chain.
I.
K
K
G
C
M
M
Originally
honestly
wanted
to
change
this
ordinance.
I
talked
to
the
city
plinth
the
the
Planning
Department
about
it,
because
it's
not
a
good
ordinance,
the
way
that
it's
written
but
at
the
same
time,
I
respect
my
clients,
time
and
his
money
and
effort
right
now
to
get
to
this
point
and
the
way
that
it
was
the
way
that
this
was
granted
for
us
to
keep
the
driveway
in
place
was
to
go
through
a
variance
process
within
a
certain
period
of
time.
M
G
M
Ordinance
process
to
revise
the
ordinances,
a
lengthy
process,
even
even
if
everybody's
in
favor
of
it
and
I,
think
they
would
be
that
the
ordinance
doesn't
make
any
sense,
the
way
that
it's
written
in
today's
world,
you
know
you're
talking
probably
about
a
four
month
process
or
so
I'm,
gonna
guess
right
so
four
months
so
again,
I
was
given
the
opportunity
to
come
here
and
seek
of
variance
rather
than
change
the
ordinance
which
I
think
we
need
to
do
anyway.
Why
don't
you
grant
this
variance
and
then
we'll
go
change?
The
ordinance?
That's
what
we.
L
So
here
is
the
the
piece
about
that
there
is
a
temporary
CEO
on
this
process
on
this
project
right
now
for
these
folks
to
utilize
their
house
in
their
driveway
in
the
configuration
that's
currently
there,
that's
at
the
discretion
of
the
building
official
okay.
At
any
point
in
time,
they
can
pull
that
back
and
say,
send
them
to
code
enforcement.
L
So
during
the
time
on
way
under
which
we
would
be
possibly
many
an
ordinance
or
possibly
not
amending
an
ordinance
they're
subject
to
at
any
point
in
time
that
provision
happening
so
a
decision
even
needs
to
be
rendered
on
whether
or
not
what's
going
to
happen
because
outside
of
this,
they
could
end
up
in
a
situation
where
they
do
end
up
in
code
enforcement
board.
Now
I'm
not
saying
that
that's
going
to
happen,
I'm
just
saying
the
reality
of
the
situation
is.
L
It
does
take
three
months
to
go
through
board,
given
the
process
that
we
have
in
place,
because
you
have
two
other
boards
that
have
to
see
this
plus
the
technical
review
team,
so
George
is
directly
correct.
We
gave
him
both
of
those
options
and
laid
that
out
for
him
when
we
discuss
the
variance
coming
originally
to
to
this
board,
so
he
is
directly
correct
and
what
he's
per
the
information
he's
provided
you
tonight
on?
L
They
chose
to
go
this
route
because
they
felt
that
to
alleviate
the
situation
that
they
have
and
again
that
doesn't
change
staffs
position
on
this
ordinance.
All
I'm
telling
you
is
just
giving
you
the
information
on
that
we
gave
them
that
option.
They
chose
this
this
route
and
you
know
we
support
them
in
making
that
that
determination,
but
I,
don't
think
a
continuance
on
the
off-chance
that
the
board
might
be
moving
forward
immediately
with
an
ordinance
because
I
don't
have
anything
right
now
to
say
that
the
ordinance
is
going
tomorrow.
L
Q
So
by
granting
me
the
variance
tonight
you're
giving
the
commissioners
the
evidence
that
they
need
that
the
code
is
no
longer
appropriate
because
they're
going
to
be
able
to
say
wait
a
minute.
We've
had
to
grant
another
variance,
because
the
code
doesn't
make
sense
for
a
96
foot
lot.
We
had
to
grant
another
variance
because
the
house,
although
it's
smaller
than
the
house,
that
used
to
be
there
that
wasn't
in
in
compliance
it's
still
not
in
compliance.
Q
So
at
what
point,
if
nothing
ever
gets
approved
in
variance,
then
the
commissioners
are
gonna,
sit
there
saying.
Well,
the
code
is
working,
just
fine,
there's
nothing
to
worry
about.
So
this
board
process
gives
the
commissioners
the
the
opportunity
to
say.
Look.
Here's
another
example
of
why
the
code
has
to
be
changed,
so
we
don't
have
to
go
through
the
variance.
May.
A
G
E
A
Q
G
A
O
C
C
A
B
O
C
M
C
C
R
Application
17
one
to
five
requests:
relief
from
the
littoral
enforcement
of
land
development
code,
36.0
requiring
36
inches
of
clearance
between
the
water's
edge
of
a
swimming
pool
in
the
swimming
pool,
screen
enclosure,
a
five-foot
drainage,
easement,
runs
the
length
of
the
rear
property
line
between
the
retention
pond
and
the
concrete
decks
around
the
swimming
pool.
No
structure
may
be
built
within
that
easement.
The
applicant
hired
licensed
contractors
to
perform
permitted
work.
R
They
did
not
request,
nor
were
they
aware
of
any
potential
nonconformity
with
the
city
of
tarpon
springs
land
development,
literal
enforcement
of
36.0
two
would
have
the
effect
of
denying
the
applicant
reasonable
use
of
the
property.
Granting
the
variance
in
this
unusual
circumstance
would
not
confer
any
special
privilege
to
the
applicant
and
grading.
The
variance
has
no
impact
on
other
properties.
R
R
Findings
of
fact,
for
the
record,
the
request
is
to
reduce
the
required
three-foot
distance
between
water's
edge
of
a
pool
and
a
screen
enclosure
from
36
inches
to
29
inches.
It
would
be
economically
impractical,
impracticable
to
correct
the
contractor's
mistake.
Further
economic
impact
ability
notwithstanding,
it
would
be
impossible
to
build
a
new
screen
enclosure
in
compliance
with
this
subsection
due
to
site
constraints.
Beyond
the
applicants
control,
the
granting
of
the
variance
would
not
extend
any
special
privilege
to
the
applicant.
R
The
granting
of
this
variance
would
not
hinder
the
character
of
the
existing
neighborhood
and
it
would
not
create
a
nuisance.
The
request
conforms
to
the
general
intent
of
the
land
development
code
and
the
policies
of
the
Comprehensive
Plan
staff
recommends
approval
of
the
requested
variance
to
reduce
the
required
distance
between
the
water's
edge
of
a
swimming
pool
and
the
pool
screen
enclosure
from
36
inches
to
29
inches
as
the
minimum
variance
that
will
achieve
a
result
that
is
fair
to
the
applicant
and
the
public
alike.
C
N
N
F
N
H
B
D
N
You
I
just
like
to
say
one
thing
in
my
younger
days:
I
served
as
a
chairman
of
the
board
of
adjustment
and
I
know
how
hard
it
is
to
make
decisions.
It's
my
first
time,
I've
ever
been
in
front
of
one,
but
I
always
thought
I
did
a
good
job
serving
the
public.
I
just
want
you
to
know,
I'm
a
new
permanent
resident
to
Florida,
welcomed
by
Hurricane
Emma
and
the
29-inch
problem
that
the
staff
and
the
government
of
Tarpon
Springs
has
treated
me
beyond
expectations
and
I.
N
N
N
N
C
C
H
H
The
the
development
roadway
Athenian
Way
circles
through
the
development,
almost
in
a
circular
motion
inside
with
in
Athenian
way
in
the
interior,
are
22
units
were
built
in
2007.
The
required
sidewalk
that
was
on
the
approved
site
plan
for
the
plant
was
built
around
an
entire
interior
perimeter
of
Athenian
way.
It
also
the
connections
to
to
the
east
via
live
oak.
The
Eastern
neighborhood
and
also
to
the
west
over
to
our
north
banana
strike
were
also
built.
H
The
subject
of
tonight's
waiver
request
is
the
the
14
units
on
the
north
side
of
Athenian
way,
as
you
can
see
in
the
aerial
those
had
a
site
plan
approved
with
a
sidewalk
in
front
of
them
connecting
the
14
units
to
each
other
and
not
to
anything
else.
The
right-of-way
in
this
development
is
privately
owned.
Under
the
control
of
a
homeowners
association,
it's
very
I'll,
say,
intimate
and
close
physical
setting.
H
H
The
driveway
depths
are
on
the
order
of
eight
feet
and
a
lot
of
times
if
the
cars
are
not
in
the
garage
depending
on
what
they
are,
if
they're,
not
a
compact
car,
they
do
occupy
that
that
easement
a
lot
of
the
time
and
we
do
have
a
sidewalk
on
the
south
side
uninterrupted
by
drives.
That
goes
the
length
of
that
interior
perimeter
of
Athenian
way.
H
The
driveways
are
close
enough
together,
where
the
aprons
touch.
Some
of
the
time,
so
we
have
a
lot
of
paving
there.
So,
in
short,
this
is
a
an
area
where
traffic
is
calmed
by
the
loop
and
the
lane.
A
configuration
of
Athenian
Way
and
the
existing
sidewalk
is
very
close
to
the
14
units.
The
other
item
I
might
mention
is
there
is
a
sidewalk
that
was
designed
to
connect
those
14
units
to
each
other
in
the
back
on
the
water
side
that
was
installed,
and
that
leads
out
to
the
road
as
well
the
variance
criteria.
H
There's
a
lot
of
detail
given
here
in
the
variance
criteria.
We
can
answer
any
questions
with
respect
to
that.
This
prop
this
I'm
sorry
waiver
right
here
here,
and
this
is
the
sidewalk
waiver
criteria
in
Section
132
of
the
code.
The
waiver
request
was
properly
noticed
and
we
received
one
letter
in
support
of
the
waiver.
H
It's
in
your
packet
staff
recommended
findings
of
fact,
for
the
record
number
one
anklet
River
crossings
was
originally
planted
in
2004
and
26
of
the
units
were
built
in
2007
or
which
were
built
without
the
planned
sidewalk
that
was
included
on
the
plat.
The
property
underwent
a
partial
replant
in
2016
for
the
remaining
10
Lots,
which
were
subsequently
built
in
2017
without
the
planned
sidewalk.
Therefore,
a
lot
23
3
lot
36
the
14
Lots
were
built
without
the
plaited
sidewalk
connections
along
the
north
side
of
Athenian
way.
H
Four,
the
conditions
of
the
property,
we're
not
self
created
and
did
not
result
from
an
action
by
the
applicant,
since
it
is
still
physically
possible
to
install
the
sidewalk
connection.
Should
the
waiver
be
denied
and
one
point
just
based
on
earlier
questions.
As
far
as
when
this
was
discovered,
the
four
units
built
in
2007
on
the
north
side
of
Athenian
Way,
don't
have
a
sidewalk
staff
has
researched
researched
extensively
and
we
don't
know
what
happened
there.
C
S
My
name
is
Phillip
Burke
I
live
at
107
Atheneum
way,
tarpon
springs,
I
am
a
member
of
the
board
of
directors
for
the
Anglo
river
crossing
Housing
Association,
the
board
of
the
anklet
Austin
housing
associations
support
the
city
in
reference
to
application,
17
stroke
1/2,
a
waiver
of
requirement.
The
sidewalk
construction
for
the
following
reasons:
the
site
work
not
being
constructed
over
a
decade
ago
was
an
oversight
by
the
city
and
the
original
developer.
The
developer
has
long
since
disappeared
and
is
no
longer
affiliated
to
our
community.
S
And
cobra
the
crossing
has
a
sidewalk
located
directly
across
the
street.
Only
23
feet
from
107
to
127
and
spanning
the
entire
community
and
to
and
including
the
exits
requiring
a
new
sidewalk
would
replace
mature
landscape
and
more
concrete
pavement
here
by
compromising
our
curb
appeal
and
creating
more
runoff
into
our
neighboring
waterways.
The
street
in
front
of
our
units
101
to
127,
is
a
private
street
and
having
no
through
traffic
and
very
low
traffic
count.
The
added
sidewalk
would
not
lend
to
public
safety
or
function
for
the
14
residents.
S
C
C
K
K
G
P
Question
for
you,
if
this
waiver
were
to
be
granted,
does
that
ensure
that
the
homeowners
association
and
it's
protected
for
future
action
of
my
fear?
Is
we
grant
this
waiver
and
then
ten
years
from
now,
somehow
they
someone
comes
back
to
them
and
say
you
were
supposed
to
have
these
sidewalks
I
mean
this
thing
have
staying.
G
Power
yep
I
mean
they
were
granted
a
waiver
from
the
provision.
So
yes,
now
in
the
event
that
they
they
they
sold
the
property
demolished
it,
and
it
were
to
be
constructed
again
that,
depending
upon
what
that
looked,
like
the
conditions,
may
not
apply
for
the
waiver,
so
maybe
in
that
sense
the
variance
doesn't
necessarily
run
with
the
land,
but
that
would
be
the
same
as
any
other
variance
I
mean
if
you're
like.
P
F
G
S
Actually,
some
of
their
homes
are
unoccupied.
This
is
the
last
the
10
units
been
built
in
the
last
year,
four
of
them
sold
and
we've
not
really
had
opportunity
to
meet
them
as
a
Housing
Association.
The
four
units
that
were
bill
in
207
were
all
in
favor
and
the
Board
of
Directors
are
in
favor
of
this.
H
G
P
S
C
A
second
discussion
I've
been
out
to
the
property
to
take
a
view,
and
it's
I
think
one
sidewalk
is
enough
and
I'm
much
in
favor
of
sidewalks,
but
I
think
one
is
sufficient.
The
code
used
to
state
know
if
it
still
does
that's
why
I'm
asking
the
staff
with
the
sidewalk
waiver,
if
it's
unreasonable
or
unwarranted
instead
of
the
usual
hardship,
quote
hardship
requirements
it's
because
if
a
sidewalk
is
unreasonable
or
unwarranted,
I
think
that's
still
the
code
and
I
think
in
this
case
it
is
unreasonable
and
a
warrant.
C
C
C
A
G
Have
never
said
you
can't
change
your
rules
of
procedure
without
the
Board
of
approval
or
the
Commission's
approval.
Your
rules
of
procedure
are
set
by
yourselves
and
done
by
a
resolution,
so
you
can
change
your
rules
of
procedure.
These
rules
are
procedure.
You
cannot
change
your
powers
and
duties
that
are
listed
in
the
code.
G
It's
not
you
can
look.
You
can
look
at
the
recordings
and
see
because
if
you
recall
there
was
a
discussion
on
an
agenda
item
for
changing
your
rules
of
procedure
as
it
was
discussed
for
orders
and
then
that
never
actually
got
changed.
So
you,
you
guys,
have
had
discussions
on
this
board
with
changing
your
rules.
C
G
No
no
I
did
not
say
that
I
said
there
is
a
specific
provision
about
orders
and
you
we're
talking
about
changing
that
and
you
didn't
now.
There
is
a
provision
in
your
code
in
the
code
that
you
cannot
change.
That
goes
to
orders,
but
this
the
provision
in
your
rules
of
procedure
that
governs
orders.
You
talked
about
changing.
C
G
G
C
H
G
A
G
C
G
B
G
C
A
Just
like
to
comment
on
what
we
attempted
to
do
earlier
and
I
think
that
that
we
can
do
that
in
the
future.
If
we
get
some
case
in
front
of
us
that
fits
that
criteria
and
perhaps
we
can
send
them
to
the
Commission.
But
hopefully
that
won't
have
to
happen,
because
hopefully
those
two
gentlemen
will
croch
the
mayor
and
commissioners
and
and
make
that
change.
G
Do
know
you
can
import
comments
right
now
or
individually.
You
can
go
to
Heather
and
you
can
tell
her
what
the
code
provision
is.
The
section
I
would
suggest
that
you
have
the
actual
section
number
you
can
send
to
her,
but
I'll.
Let
her
determine
what
that
looks.
Like
you
go
to
Heather
you
give
her.
The
information
tell
her
what
needs
to
be
changed.
C
G
G
You
can
certainly
make
it
in
the
comment
and
board
comment
or
you
can
shoot
her
an
email
or
you
know
you
can
go
into
her
office,
but
if
you're
going
to
do
it
as
a
board
again,
you
know
this
is
a
sticky
wicket,
because
you're
your
powers
and
duties
don't
actually
allow
you
to
do
this,
but
the
Board
of
Commissioners
is
that
that
you
know
go
ahead.
So
in
this,
in
this
situation,
I
would
say
to
keep
it
in
the
public.
Sure
let's
go
ahead
and
make
it
under
board
comments.
C
G
I
mean
go
ahead
and
and
again
there's
no
there's
no
rhyme
or
reason.
There's
no
rules
for
this
because
you're
technically
not
allowed
to
do
it
so
I.
Don't
think
you
don't
need
to
make
a
motion,
you
don't
have
to
have
a
consensus.
You
just
say:
hey
Heather
section,
you
know
you,
seventeen
point,
zero
one,
a
we
disagree
with
this.
C
A
P
Well,
I
mean
I
personally,
think
that
I
mean
these
are
detailed
things,
that
we
are
referencing
application
numbers
and
dates
and
addresses
to
where
it
would
benefit
us
to
be
able
to
give
an
educated,
comprehensive
submission
to
staff.
So
if
we
could,
as
suggested
email
those
things
as
individuals,
I
mean
I
can't
come
up
off
the
top
of
my
head
off
the
fly
with
names
addresses
numbers,
exact
things
that
I
want
to
submit
right
now.
I
would
benefit
from
going
home
and
doing
my
homework
and
emailing.
Heather
helps
me
personally
and
and.
G
You
know
what
maybe
this
is.
Maybe
this
needs
to
go
to
the
city
manager
for
exactly
what
the
forum
is
that
he
wants,
because
my
understanding
and
discussions
was
that
he
just
wanted
an
informal
recommendation
that
would
go
through
Heather.
That
says,
we
get
a
lot
of
variances
with
regard
to
the
swimming
pools
and
the
rear
step
back
right
with
the
the
36
inches.
We
think
this
needs
to
be
changed,
that's
outdated.
We
think
it
needs
three
feets
ridiculous.
We
want
it
to
be
more.
C
L
And
addresses
and
specific
applications
are
not
necessary.
Okay,
what
your
board
was
trying
to
say
is:
if
you
have
a
problem
with
the
law,
a
specific
section
of
the
code
like
Erica
is
talking
about.
You
know
the
pool
thing,
the
fence
thing,
all
the
other
issues
that
you
have
dealt
with
in
the
past,
and
some
of
you
are
still
new
to
the
board.
L
It
can
go
through
the
provisions,
mr.
Braus
key.
If
you
still
want
to
send
those
sections
for
the
variant
section,
we
can
send
it
up
to
the
committee
to
the
city
manager
again,
I,
just
don't
know
that
you're
gonna
get
anything
beyond
what
was
discussed
last
night,
I
think
that
that
has
been
discussed
by
the
board.
However,
if
you
want
to
move
that
same
information
that
came
out
of
your
letter,
that
we
responded
to
that's
fine,
we
can
move
that
forward
up
there.
I
just
need
to
know
that.
That's
your
discretion,
that's
not
your
just!
L
C
C
K
O
P
G
Because,
again
and
I
don't
want
to
beat
a
dead
horse,
so
this
is
the
last
time
I'm
gonna
say
this
because
again
the
board-
that's
actually
written
well
I'm,
not
making
that
promise.
I.
Think
about
the
board
that
actually
is
responsible
for
making
changes
to
the
land
development
code
is
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Board,
so
they
actually,
within
their
powers
and
duties,
have
a
specific
provision
that
says
that
they
are
to
review
the
land
development
code
and
recommend
changes
for
the
board
of
commissioners.
So
you
guys
are
giving
a
special
provision.
G
I,
don't
know
how
long
that's
gonna
last
so
this
may
be
temporary,
so
my
suggestion
would
be
take
it
as
you
can
get
them
get
them
to
Heather
as
soon
as
you
can,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
they're
still
gonna
have
to
go
through
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Board
to
get
to
the
Commission
at
any
at
any
rate.
So
because
that
is
the
city's
local
planning
agency
that
is
deemed
by
the
you
know
the
florists
that.
A
Yes,
so
then
I
would
recommend
Heather
that
we
address
it
the
way
the
gentleman
spoke
about
how
they
did
in
Colorado.
If
we
could
just
go
through
the
variances
that
we
have
given
and
see,
which
ones
are
identical
or
similar
and
say.
Why
are
we
having
to
give
these
so
often?
Why
don't
we
change
that
rule?
Perhaps
let's
do
it
that
way
that
solves
a
problem?
It's
just
simple
math.
We
just
look
at
what
has
been
done
and
say:
okay,
this
is
obviously
a
problem.
Let's
change
this.
A
That
seems
to
me
better
than
just
having
I
mean
we
can
still
continue
to
do
it
the
way
we're
doing
it,
but
that
solves
it
all,
because
we
have
the
history.
We
know
what
variances
we've
given
and
we
know
why
we've
had
to
keep
giving
them.
So,
let's
go
through
the
history,
look
at
those
and
then
present
those
to
the
people
that
need
to
have
that
information
and.
G
C
K
11
cases,
I'm,
sorry
from
May
through
December
and
I,
would
have
imagined
that
the
ordinance
is
for
a
variance
as
per
what
a
variance
should
be
if
it's
supposed,
if
the
City
Attorney's
Office
was
thinking,
it
should
be
one
out
of
a
hundred
nine
out
of
eleven
were
actually
staff.
Recommendations
and
I
understand
I,
understand
that.
But
the
staff
is
also
supposed
to
analyze
things
and
give
their
recommendation
based
on
what.
K
And
and
to
my
point
there
I
would
say
that
I
wouldn't
see
anybody
here,
arguing
against
the
staff
recommendation
from
the
public,
but
I
understand
it's
a
loophole
there.
But
you
get
my
point
if
the
staff
is
on
their
research
and
they
think
it
should
be
a
variance.
Then,
if,
if
there's
11
of
those
and
9
of
those
were
staff
recommended,
perhaps
those
were.
A
I
just
wait
a
minute:
I,
don't
first
file
and
recognize
your
authority
to
say
the
city
staff
will
not
be
doing
that.
First
of
all,
who
told
you
you
could
say
that
and
that
that
would
mean
anything
second
of
all
if
Colorado
City
planners
and
staff
could
look
at
common-sense
stuff
like
that
and
their
history
and
notice
that
there
was
a
problem.
Maybe
we
should
change
the
law,
then
why
can't
we
do
that?
So
that's
that.
E
E
A
G
G
A
C
B
C
C
L
The
what
that
regulation
says
and
I
don't
I
can
tell
you
right
now:
non-conformities,
there's
a
lot
of
keys.
All
there
we
have
very
good
I
would
say
we
have
a
very
good
section
on
on
that,
specifically
because
you
are
really
holding
people
to
the
criteria
that
you
have.
There
I
mean
it's
a
very
tight
criteria,
and
then
this
board
is
the
is
the
is
the
relief
valve
in
that
criteria.
I.
L
Think
of
all
the
issues
that
you
guys
have
dealt
with,
the
non-conforming
use
section
is
probably
the
best
written
section,
given
the
issues
that
you
have
to
do.
You
know
the
thing
that
comes
on
a
regular
basis
is
the
non-conforming
lot
thing
you
know
we
do
have
that
section
under
the
non-conforming
Lots.
But
again,
if
you
put
a
group
of
law
conforming
Lots
together,
you
put
any
group
of
not
performing
Lots
together.
L
It
now
becomes
a
conforming
piece
of
property,
and
basically
your
standards
say
when
you
can
create
a
compete,
conforming
piece
of
property,
that
is
the
preference
of
the
Commission,
essentially
so
I-
think
that
that
section
I
would
agree.
Her
was
probably
well
written,
but
it
certainly
was
something
we
can
add
to.
We
can
add
to
that
list.
If
you
want
to
look
at
it.
P
Mean
like
I,
said
I've,
it's
you
know
gun
to
your
head
thinking
through
my
notes:
I'm
just
I'm,
a
very
visual
person,
I
like
to
go
back
and
look
at
my
notes.
I
do
agree
with
what
was
brought
before.
I
would
like
the
opportunity
to
review
those
things
and
email,
Heather,
concise
bullet
to
three
points.
P
One
thing
that
I
can
think
of
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
appropriate
or
where
this
fits
in
with
this
is
I'm
I
feel
like
I'm,
starting
to
see
a
trend
of
things
coming
before
us
that
are
result
of
inspecting
a
either
an
error
within
our
city.
Inspectors
are
the
building
permitting
departments
to
where
one
says.
Yes,
you
can
do
it
and
then
it
comes
out
to
be
inspected
in
the
inspector
says.
P
No,
where
I'm
seeing
some
conflicting
information,
that's
happening
internally
and
I
like
I
said:
I've
had
this
conversation
with
Heather
and
the
staff
before
I
understand
I'll
be
the
first
to
say,
you
know
we're.
Human
mistakes
are
gonna
happen
and
I
know
that
you
worked
with
folks
through
those
situations
that
I
greatly
appreciate
that,
but
like
the
gentleman
last
month
with
his
slab,
so
you
know
what
in
thinking
more
about
it,
thinking
inspector
didn't
measure
it
day.
P
One
comes
back
the
next
time
and
measures
so
and
the
homeowner
measure
bless
his
heart
yeah,
the
homeowner,
measured
him
busted,
his
ownself,
so
and
and
but
who
is
penalized
and
who's
brought
before
us
for
it,
the
homeowner.
So
some
of
those
things
and
I
just
don't
know
where
that
and
like
I
said
again,
I'm
a
word
person.
I
want
to
sit
down
and
craft.
My
statement,
I.
G
L
Some
of
the
contractor
piece
is
not
regular,
as
part
of
a
part
of
the
issue
has
to
do
with
licensing
in
the
county
and
and
and
the
lack
thereof.
The
oversight
and
things
that
have
happened
so
as
a
result
understand
that,
while
the
property
owners
are
the
ones
that
are
coming
to
you,
they
don't
they
can't
necessarily
just
go
to
court
very
easily
and
get
a
remedy,
because
the-
and
so
this
is
their
their
relief.
L
Alvin
I
mean
we've
even
had
issues
some
of
the
variances
you've
seen
tonight
with
folks
who
actually
take
ownership,
I
mean
George,
took
ownership
of
that
situation
and
then
brought
the
remedy
here.
I
mean
he
brought
the
applicant
the
owner
with
him.
However,
he
took
ownership
of
that
with
another
contractor
who
was
not
interested
in
taking
ownership,
and
so
the
applicant
who
is
rather
elderly
is
taking
ownership
so,
and
that
happens
on
a
regular
basis
here,
I
can
think
of
somebody
over
on
a
vaca
Drive
that
had
happened
to
so.
O
About
four
or
five
months
ago,
we
met
unofficially
with
the
Board
of
Commissioners,
upstairs
well
for
the
benefit
of
the
city,
the
City
Commission
or
the
city
fathers,
this
board,
and
especially
our
citizens
that
27%
that
was
mentioned,
that
they
that
we
have
rejected
you,
recommendations
versus
other
boards
that
had
done
in
ninety
nine
and
a
half
percent
I.
Believe
it
was
that
database,
you
have
it
what
we
have
rejected
in
order
for
you
to
come
up
with
27%.
O
Why
can't
we
utilize
that
database
find
out
which
are
the
most
common
ones
that
fall
in
the
same
line
and
then
pick
up
from
those
two
three
lines
that
are
repeating
themselves
and
then
recommend
it
to
the
Commission
through
the
planning,
mr.
de
Porres,
and
then
to
the
Commission?
Why
can
we
follow
that
and
all
of
the
shows-
and
we
say
the
staff
won't
spend
time-
that's
already
in
the
books,
Erica.
O
A
And
let
me
first
apologize,
Eric
I
didn't
mean
to
cut
you
off
or
to
be
rude
in
any
way.
I
simply
didn't
understand
that
you
were
answering
or
Heather.
If
she
just
said:
hey
I'm,
not
gonna.
Do
that
you
do
it
I
get
it
right,
but
I
just
didn't
get
that
you
were
intervening
before
she
could
even
answer
the
question,
which
is
basically
what
he
just
asked
is.
Wherever
that
data
came
from.
Why
can't
we,
you
know
access
that
data
and
they
just
seemed
like
that
would
be
a
simpler
way.
A
F
L
Honestly,
what
we
will,
but
what
we
would
do
in
that
case
chris,
is
you've.
Given
me
a
list
of
three
that's
the
first
thing:
I'm
gonna
take
two
to
Mister,
of
course,
and
then,
after
that,
we
will
be
glad
to
pull
whatever
you
guys
want
to
pull
and
take
a
look
at.
You
know
what
are
the
the
reoccurring
themes
I
can
tell
you.
Fences
were
something
that
we
dealt
with.
L
However,
you
guys
held
the
line
on
fences,
so
you
may
not
want
to
look
at
that
section,
but
I
know
you
guys
did
have
some
concerns
with
the
to
fence.
Variances
that
we
did
see
so
I
mean
you
know
we
can
lay
I
can
certainly
give
you
the
broader
themes
on
those.
It's
not
gonna
be
a
whole
lot
of
work
to
do,
but
it's
not
like
I'm
gonna
break
it
down.
Well,
you
did
this
many
in
this
I'm,
not
getting
into
that.
L
What
I
will
give
you
the
broader
themes,
based
on
what
we
see
reoccurring
so
having
pools,
are
a
big
one.
Driveways
are
I,
can
think
of
about
a
half-dozen
off
the
top
of
my
head
for
driveways
that
we've
done
in
the
last
two
years.
You
know
and
I'm
not
going
to
be
going
back
much
beyond
those
two
years,
because
the
majority
of
you
guys
weren't
sitting
on
this
board
at
that
time.
So
you
know
the
issues
that
were
faced
by
previous
staff.
I,
don't
know
how
relevant
they
really
are
to
today.
P
I'm
thinking
in
the
interest
of
being
responsible
stewards
of
our
resources,
we've
given
Heather
and
her
team,
you
know
these
these
three
or
four
things
to
look
at
you
know
that
takes
time,
staff
and
resources
to
do
that.
Our
legal
counsel
has
already
created
that
other
document
with
that
analysis,
so
that's
a
good
starting
off
point
and
as
part
of
being
volunteers,
if
we
can
go
back
in
our
own
notes
and
look
to
see,
are
there
any
other
things
that
we
want
to
bring
forward
as
opposed
to
asking
you
know
for
an
exhaustive
it.
P
L
Of
the
applications
we
do
per
year
add
up
to
a
little
over
100
applications
over
the
entire
course
of
all
the
boards
that
we
serve.
So
we're
not
talking
about
such
a
vault
of
volume
as
amount
of
information,
but
we
are
talking
about
because
they
do
so
few
I
mean
honestly.
You
guys
think
you
do
a
lot,
but
because
you're
doing
so
few
of
those
I've
been
in
jurisdictions
where
it's
a
lot
more,
and
so
you
know,
when
you
get
into
the
discussion
of
a
hundred,
it's
not
necessarily
a
hundred
variance
applications.
L
It's
hundreds
of
permits
in
the
variances
that
do
become
weak
for
you,
it's
the
majority
of
that
percentage,
which
is
a
small
percentage
of
all
the
building
permits
that
we
issue
that
really
that
1%
that
they're
trying
the
attorney's
office
is
getting
to
it's,
not
a
one
in
a
hundred
variants
per
applications,
at
least
Eric
I.
Don't
want
to
put
that
in
there,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
that
was
the
intention.
I
think
what
Jay
was
trying
to
illustrate
is
we
give
hundreds
of
out
of
building
permits
hundreds
of
building
permits
a
year?
L
So
as
a
result
of
that
percentage,
you're
seeing
a
small
percent
and
then
have
that
small
percent
that
you
do
see,
it
should
be
a
small
percent
that
you
actually
grant
the
variance
to.
So
the
numbers
are
just
like
how
often
a
hundred
year
storm
event
is
going
to
occur
in
your
community,
doesn't
happen
once
every
100
years.
It
can
happen
once
every
year
for
the
fur
for
what
a
part
of
what
it
matters.
It's
illustrative
of
a
point
I.
B
L
G
F
G
Would
suggest
is
if
you're
going
to
email,
it
email
it
to
Heather
individually
and
then,
if
something
comes
of
it,
she
can
email
it
to
the
board
and
say
these
are
the
things
here's
a
list
of
the
things
that
we
received.
That
way
you
find
out,
but
I
would
just
prefer
I
mean
you're,
not
you're,
not
going
to
see
changes
to
the
land
development
code
come
before
you,
that's
not
your
purview.
That's.
C
G
I
would
just
for
just
for
conservative
and
and
to
make
sure
we're
not
getting
into
any
Anthony's
mud.
Here,
let's
go
ahead
and
whatever
you
email
to
Heather,
she
can
certainly
compile
them
and
email
them
to
everybody
in
one
fell
swoop
and
then
just
do
not
reply
all
that
email.
So
if
you're
gonna
just
keep
it
between
you
and
Heather
and
Heather
can
disseminate
information
to
the
entire
board,
and
then
at
that
point
you
can
do.
C
C
O
Chairman
mentioned
number
seven
earlier
on
the
driveway
that
it
may
expand
to
other
homeowners
and
so
on
so
forth,
and
it
will
change
the
whole
thing
in
the
area
across
the
street
from
this
driveway
on
117
to
123.
Whatever
the
number
was,
it's
a
house
number
two
or
two
on
the
west
side
of
North
North
Florida.
O
The
house
has
a
driveway
of
over
35
40
feet
who
gave
permission
to
the
homeowner
the
last
years
to
have
the
driveway
there.
He
even
has
moved
his
mailbox
with
a
big
square
post
right
on
the
pavement
of
the
road.
Nobody
came
here
to
get
a
permission
for
that
and
nobody
has
looked
at
that
and
that
driveway
is
over
35
feet.
If.
G
O
O
G
It
you
don't
know
that
and
that's
not
true
it's
whether
or
not
their
application
in
the
oven
that
they
present
to
you
meets
the
criteria.
That's
in
the
code,
whether
or
not
the
code
is
fair
or
not,
or
whether
or
not
somebody
else
received
a
variance
or
whether
or
not
that
doesn't
even
apply
to
them,
maybe
they're
their
right
of
way,
maybe
that
the
b.width
on
their
right
of
way
isn't
compliant,
and
maybe
they
just
expanded
their
driveway
further
up,
I,
don't
know
their
circumstances.