►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments February 28, 2018
Description
Description
B
C
C
A
A
A
C
C
C
We
are
authorized
in
the
case
of
an
emergency,
to
deviate
from
the
agenda
and
to
accommodate
people,
and
there
has
been
one
request
to
move
number
seven
up:
the
489,
Riverside
Drive,
doc
variance.
Is
there
anybody
here
I
think
we
can
take
the
first,
the
first
one
anyway,
dr.
morasseau's,
that's
pretty
quick
anybody
here
from
Habitat
for
Humanity,
sir.
Would
you
mind
if
we
waited
and
take
yours
at
the
end?
Is
that
okay?
Are
you
in
a
rush
to
leave?
That's
okay!
C
Thank
you
very
much
appreciate
that
and
from
Seabreeze
drive
anybody
here
from
Seabreeze
Drive.
Would
you
mind
waiting
till
the
end
of
the
meeting?
Also
no
problem
I
want
to
catch
a
flight
or
have
any
sick
children
at
home.
Okay,
all
right!
So
then,
let's
take
dr.
Moreau.
So,
first
after
our
quasi-judicial
announcement
and
the
swearing
of
the
speakers
and
then
we'll
go
to
Riverside
Drive
and
then
to
Cypress,
Street
and
then
Seabreeze
truck,
is
it
okay
with
everybody
objection
all
right
all
right?
Let's
start
with
our
legal
counsel,
then
please.
E
This
is
excuse
me,
this
is
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
where
the
Board
of
Adjustment
acts
in
a
quasi-judicial,
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity
at
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
It
is
not
the
board's
function
to
make
law,
but
rather
to
apply
law
that
has
already
been
established
in
a
quasi
judicial
hearing.
The
board
is
required
by
law,
to
make
findings
of
fact,
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
apply
those
findings
of
fact
to
previously
establish
criteria
containing
the
Code
of
Ordinances
in
order
to
make
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
before
it.
E
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
at
this
hearing
that
the
law
considers
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
to
the
issues.
If
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
met
the
criteria
established
in
the
court
of
ordinance,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
in
favor
of
the
applicant.
By
the
same
token,
if
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
failed
to
meet
the
criteria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinance,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
against
the
applicant.
E
C
E
C
F
Is
Pat
McNees
principal
planner?
This
is
a
request
for
one
six
month:
extension
to
application,
number
1600,
seven
for
variance
to
the
minimum
side,
yard
setback
and
the
minimum
rear
yard
setback
in
order
to
construct
a
two-story
addition,
pursuant
to
an
order
granting
a
variance
dated
March
3rd
2016.
F
There
are
two
conditions
to
be
met
to
hear
this.
The
first
is
that
the
written
request
was
submitted
in
a
timely
manner,
and
the
second
is
that
the
surrounding
owners
be
noticed.
Both
of
those
have
been
met.
No
correspondence
was
received.
Staff
recommends
approval
of
the
extension
that
would
extend
them
to
September
3rd
2018.
F
G
G
We
certainly
it
was
not
for
lack
of
trying.
We've
had
three
architects
in
the
mean
time
number
of
plans,
all
of
none
of
which
came
in
anywhere
near
our
budget
and
coupling
that,
with
some
significant
family
health
issues
lead
us
to
where
we
are
today.
So
we
would
respectfully
request
that
the
board
extend
our
variance.
We
have
a
plan
that
we
think
will
meet
our
need
fit
within
the
variance
and
also
fit
within
our
budget.
C
C
F
This
the
location
has
been
given.
This
is
on
behalf
of
the
owner.
Jeff
Jennings,
the
zoning
is
our
one
hundred
the
atlandis
is
residential
love.
Basically,
if
the
board
could
would
like
to
refer
to
an
aerial
photograph
with
the
depiction
of
the
dock
layout
that
the
applicant
submitted,
that
might
be
best
to
explain
what's
going
on
here.
F
C
F
F
If
you
look
at
this
property,
you'll
see
that
the
darkest
is
that's
basically
there's
a
doclet.
You
have
to
access
that
property
that
portion
across
Riverside
Drive.
The
property
line
obviously
goes
out
into
the
water.
The
applicant
also
has
a
survey
on
file
that
shows
that
and
also
shows
the
approximate
edge
of
water.
F
The
width
of
the
property
at
the
approximate
edge
of
water
is
about
60
feet,
so
that
would
limit
the
applicant
to
a
30-foot,
long
dark.
The
applicant
has
proposed
272
foot
long
dock
so
that
that
obviously
exceeds
the
limit.
The
applicant
has
submitted
a
dock
plan
and
a
cross-section
that
shows
about
two
feet
mean
low
water
at
that
72
foot
length
and
about
fourth,
but
mean
I
want
her
there.
So
that
is
the
depth
at
that
length.
The
applicant
would
need
to
reach
to
be
able
to
dock
and
operate
a
vessel.
F
That's
what
he's
applying
for
the
second
criteria
is
centering.
This
is
with
respect
to
the
dock
walkway
extending
off
the
property
that
is
measured
with
respect
to
the
property
line,
width
and
you'll
see
the
property
line
is
out
basically
out
in
the
water.
It's
about
71
feet
wide
that
would
put
the
applicant
in
the
center
one-third.
F
He
would
be
required
to
have
the
dock,
be
23
feet
from
each
neighbor,
basically,
and
use
that
remaining
23
feet
for
placement
of
the
walkway
coming
off
the
land
he's
proposing
to
move
that
walkway
south,
so
that
he
has
a
15-foot
offset
from
the
South
neighbor
and
a
52-foot
offset
from
the
north.
The
neighbor.
F
That's
basically
a
summary
of
what
he's
asking
for
the
analysis.
We've
provided
an
extensive
analysis
and
we
did
notice
this.
We
received
one
letter
in
opposition
which
is
in
your
packet
and
to
summarize
the
staff
recommended
findings.
The
first
two
described
the
project
which
I've
covered
the
third,
the
subject.
Waterfront
properties
are
regularly
shaped
and
the
topography
that
serve
submerged
lands
in
creamers,
Bayou
adjacent
to
the
property
is
gently
sloping
necessitating
a
dock
that
exceeds
the
land
development
codes
limit
in
order
to
reach
sufficient
water
depth
per
vessel
docking.
F
The
request
events,
therefore
does
arise
out
of
physical
and
environmental
characteristics
of
the
property
number
four,
the
condition
on
the
property
for
which
the
variance
requested
has
not
been
self
readable.
Number
five
literal
enforcement
of
the
dimensional
requirements
would
prevent
construction
of
a
dog
that
reaches
sufficient
water
depth
and
allows
safe
operation
of
the
of
a
vessel.
F
This
this
report
makes
no
finding
with
respect
to
navigation
out
in
the
water
that
is
the
purview
of
the
county.
The
applicant
has
completely
in
the
packet
completed
the
county.
Applications
staff
recommends
approval
of
the
variance
for
relief
from
the
dock
length
and
docks
entering
requirements.
Are
there
any
questions?
Okay,.
C
Thank
you
for
the
benefit
of
the
audience.
Normally
we
have
questions
from
the
board
members
and
then
the
applicant
can
make
to
recommend
their
comments
and
you're
welcome
to
cross-examine
anybody,
there's
free
cross-examination
of
the
staff
or
the
other
opponents
or
the
applicants.
So
if
there's
no
objection
any
questions
from
the
board
members,
please
of
the
staff.
Yes,.
A
F
F
F
H
H
F
The
applicant
is
proposing
that
the
walkway
is
15
feet,
north
of
the
of
the
property
line,
that's
out
in
the
water
that
South
property
line
52
feet
south
of
the
other
property
corner,
that's
out
in
the
water
and
that's
shown
on
his
site
plan
this.
This
aerial
is
as
close
to
being
to
scale,
but
it's
also
an
eriell.
So
it's
not
flat
and
that's
not
really
an
official
representation
of
the
site
plan.
I
F
I
J
F
and
I'm
with
marine
products
and
I'm
representing
Jeff
Jennings,
we
do
have
a
drawing
here,
also
in
the
packet
of
an
actual
to
scale
that
goes
to
the
county,
and
that
is
to
scale
drawing,
and
if
you
did
take
an
actual
measurement
on
this,
it
is
1s2
50
feet
also.
So
it
is
really
really
super
close
to
being
a
scale,
but
this
also
was
supplied,
and
this
is
a
scale
drawing
as
well
for
the
dock,
and
we
moved
the
dock
out
of
the
middle
one.
J
J
C
J
B
C
F
K
We
really
don't
have
a
problem
with
moving
it
to
one
third
or
the
link.
It's
I'm,
not
under
I'm,
not
sure
what
we're
asking
for
the
analysis
says
it
could
be
25
feet
from
our
dock.
Yet
this,
which
I
presume
is
the
site
plan,
shows
it
to
be
40
feet
with
the
boat
left
attached
and
52
to
the
dock.
So
I
don't
understand
what
it
is
that
we're
doing,
because
it
appears
from
the
pencil
sketch
that
you
recommend
you
reference
it's
angling
to
the
right
towards
my
dock,
which
is
on
the
right
side.
K
If
it's
going
to
be
25
feet
or
approximately,
since
we
don't
really
know,
then
we
think
that
could
impact
I
think
the
term
is
substantially
yes
again.
This
is
what
we
use.
I
don't
object
to
it,
because
this
shows
it
to
be
40
so,
which
is
it
I've
contacted
environmental
management
at
the
county.
They
don't
have
anything
to
do
with
projection
or
design
either
one.
So
if
I
don't
know
what
I'm
gonna
get
then
I
have
to
oppose
it
if
I
do,
and
if
this
is
what
we're
going
to
approve,
then
that's
fine.
K
J
J
I
J
J
J
Based
on
this
office,
Street
property
line
as
well.
Now,
if
you
look
at
your
drawing
you
see
after
your
property
line,
goes
that
way:
Eisley,
so
you're
not
you're,
not
really
having
a
straight
popping
line
and
going
up
this
way,
and
that's
the
if
you
look
at
it.
This
dog
here
actually
crosses
over
Jeff
Jennings
property
line,
isolate
his
his
tenant
popping
lines
just
talk
about
the
process
over
too
far
this
way.
So
that's
why
I
moved
it
to
the
fur.
L
F
F
J
I
mean,
as
your
analyses
lines
as
well,
I
mean
the
way
the
property
lines
angles
so
bad
that
that
way
so
far,
there's
no
real
way
to
put
a
straight:
that's
not
a
straight
popular
line,
so
I'm,
just
using
a
property
line
as
right.
Next
to
your
dog.
Has
you
know,
as
you
saw
here,
but
his
property
line
goes
this
way
and
your
dog
actually
crosses
over
his
extended
property
lines.
So
I
got
to
move
the
dog
over
as
far
as
I.
C
K
K
K
F
Can
help
a
little
bit
here
these
the
center
requirements-
and
we
apply
these
every
day
right
most
of
the
time
apply
to
lots
that
that
have
lot
lines
that
are
parallel
to
each
other
and
the
docs
go
pretty
much
straight
out
perpendicular,
that's
the
presumption
of
the
coat.
That's
that's
why
the
codes
written
help
this
this
is
a
different
situation.
F
As
far
as
the
the
approximate
25
feet,
I
scaled
off,
the
aerial
I,
probably
I,
should
have
used
the
site
plan.
The
applicant
shows
28
feet
so
he's
saying
25
to
30.
It's
in
that
area.
We
now
that
is,
we
are
talking
about
the
end
of
the
dog.
The
centering
requirement
has
to
do
with
the
walkway
the
angle
of
the
dock.
F
M
E
I
think
there's
some
confusion
because
they're
the
property
line
there's
submerged
lands,
which
is
the
exterior
property
line.
So
that's
the
submerged
lands,
I,
think
that's
where
the
discrepancy
is
coming
in
is
if
you're
taking
it
from
the
shore
line,
then
he's
within
the
one-third,
if
you're
taking
it
from
the
submerged
land
line,
then
he's
right
on
the
other
he's
right
on
the
the
property
line
between
the
two
really.
M
E
That's
not
how
it
works.
So
if
you
look
there's
he
owns
part
of
the
submerged
land
underneath
the
water,
so
it
depends
on
how
and
that's
a
good
question
for
the
city.
It
depends
on
how
its
measured.
If
it's
measured
from
the
shore
line
property
line,
then
you
would
be
within
the
one-third
one-third
one-third.
If
it's
measured
from
the
submerged
land
property
line,
then
it
appears
that
he
is
right
on
the
edge
of
the
property
line,
so
the
city
might
be
able
to
better
answer.
How
that's
measured.
M
F
What
I'd
like
to
do
is
read
section
59,
be
dark,
Spears
and
shoreline
stabilization
structures.
Item
number
one.
This
has
to
do
with
the
length
private
docks
to
be
constructed
within
the
waters
of
the
county
shall
be
constructed
so
that
the
length
of
the
dock
shall
not
extend
from
the
mean
high-water
line
or
seawall
of
the
property.
Further
than
one-half
the
width
of
the
property
at
the
waterfront,
this
requirement
may
be
weighed
by
city
manager.
F
It's
at
item
two
private
docks
and
boat
lifts
must
be
constructed
within
the
center
one-third
of
the
applicants,
waterfront
property
or
fifty
feet
from
the
adjacent
property.
Whichever
is
less
restrictive
that
does
not
refer
to
the
waterfront
width
staff,
uses
the
property
line
width
for
that
center,
one-third
measurement.
F
E
E
C
Could
I
ask
you
a
question
I'm
at
the
risk
of
making
it
even
more
confusing,
but
I
see
a
picture's
worth
a
thousand
words,
although
in
my
profession,
I
think
we
prefer
the
thousand
words
but
I'm
gonna
use
the
picture
I'm.
Looking
at
this
aerial
photograph,
my
question
of
the
applicant:
are
you
gonna,
build
the
dock,
to
look
like
this?
The
footprint
and
I
don't
with
the
water
equivalent
of
the
footprint
you're
gonna,
build
it
like
this?
That's
what
you
want
to
do
now.
Mr.
Robinson,
do
you
object
to
this
particular
proposed
footprint?
K
It'll
well,
first
of
all,
my
problem
with
it
I
don't
really
have
a
particular
problem
with
it
other
than
the
dock
angles
towards
mine
and
makes
it
closer.
If
it
was
perpendicular
and
went
straight
out,
it
would
not
be
approximately
25
feet.
It
would
be
to
this
survey,
which
is
I
guess
what
this
is,
are
the
for
the
dock
plan
40
feet
from
the
boat,
lift
and
52
feet
from
the
deck
all.
C
J
C
J
C
J
C
K
J
C
K
C
C
O
O
Robinson
would
approve
my
dock
to
be
at
the
same
distance
from
his
property
as
his
is
from
mine,
because
his
dock
is
within
inches
from
my
property
line,
so
I
just
like
clarification
as
to
why
he
is
opposing
me
building
a
dock
further
away
from
his
property
line
to
help
in
navigation
when
his
dock
is
literally
going
over
my
property
line
in
the
water
area.
So
I
guess
I
just
want
clarification
in
that
regard.
C
O
I
O
O
F
J
O
How
you
build
docks
and
try
to
stay
within
the
property
line
where
the
water
continues
to
go
out?
I'm,
not
saying
you're,
literally
on
my
property
line.
You
know
I'm
just
saying
that
I'm
doing
my
best
to
plan
and
design
this
this
dock,
to
be
away
from
your
property
and
I'm
actually
closer
to
the
neighbor's
property
right
on
the.
E
E
E
E
Y'all
are
tired
of
me
saying
that,
but
based
on
the
right
criteria
in
your
code,
does
this
application
for
a
request
for
a
72
foot
dock
meet
the
criteria
and
regardless
of
what
the
site
plan
or
the
aerial
measurements
handwritten
measurements
say,
the
request
before
you
is
for
a
15
foot,
setback
from
the
southern
property
and
a
50
to
set
foot
setback
from
the
property
to
the
north
on
the
shoreline,
as
with
the
way
that
the
city
has
measured
it
from
the
shoreline.
Okay,.
E
Not
what
he's
asking
for
so
it
doesn't
matter
what
might
work
it
matters.
What
he's
asking
for
now?
It
might
matter
what
would
work,
because
if
what
works
ends
up
being
within
the
code,
then
a
bear,
then
that
does
not
the
minimum
variance
that's
being
requested
and
then
it
doesn't
meet
the
criteria.
But
that's
up
for
this
board
to
decide,
but.
F
E
Map
and
again
the
whatever
is
provided
by
staff,
is
whatever
is
provided
by
staff,
but
legally
speaking,
whatever
is
being
requested.
If
that
is
a
reflection
and
there's
testimony
and
evidence
to
bear
that
out
that
that
site
plan
is
what's
reflected
in
the
variance
and
those
are
identical,
then
yes,
well.
I
J
B
I
believe
that
that
twenty
in
and
if
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
if
I'm
looking
at
this,
you
have
the
dock,
which
is
what
is
before
us
as
part
of
the
criteria
that
we
are
to
look
at,
and
then
there
are
what
I'm,
assuming
are
the
pilings
or
the
lift
itself.
So
we,
what
is
the
application
before
us,
is
to
look
at
the
dock,
so
the
pilings
then
of
course
push
the
boat
lift
part
of
this
structure
closer
to
Robinson's,
correct,
correct.
J
H
B
J
I
J
Until
he's
afraid
see,
this
is
saying
the
dock
is
40
feet
in
which
and
the
poles
are
but
his
head
doc
point
out
there
it's
going
to
be
twenty
five.
Thirty,
and
that's
what
he's
not
wanting
you
know
he
was
gonna,
be
forty
wants
to
be
forty,
which
it
will
be
forty
here,
but
out
there
on
the
water,
where
they
both
connect
out
out
there
in
the
water.
It
may
be
twenty
five
thirty
out
there,
because
his
dock,
it
goes
on
an
angle.
E
J
E
As
that's
concerned,
you're
talking
about
the
dock
heads
where
the
lifts
are
at
the
at
the
end,
at
the
very
end
of
the
dock,
where
the
extension
is
being
asked
for
the
extra
forty
two
feet-
that's
not
necessarily
something
that
this
board
is
considering.
It
might
be
part
of
the
criteria
if
you
determined
that
it's
part
of
impact
on
surrounding
property
owners.
However,
that's
something
when
you're
talking
about
having
to
go
out
that
for
safety
and
navigation,
that's
not
something!
That's
in
the
purview
of
this
work.
I
E
P
P
That's
kind
of
the
issue
at
hand,
in
addition
to
just
having
a
very
hard
time,
understanding
what
the
actual
width
is
going
to
be,
and
there
is
no,
where
on
what
is
being
referenced
as
this
site
plan,
this
document
there's
nowhere
that
states
25:28
anything.
It
would
appear
that
they're
saying
the
closest
anything
would
be
to
us.
Is
this
40-foot
number
it's
very
deceiving.
P
I
C
Those
two
docks
and
you
see
the
distance
between
those
two
docks
and
there's
these
two
boats
on
Devitt
sand
there.
There.
It
looks
like
it's
very
easy
to
get
out
with
those
docks
being
that
distance
apart,
which
is
a
little
bit
longer
or
wider,
rather
than
what
we're
talking
about
from
this
aerial
photograph,
but
still
there's
plenty
of
room
for
boats
to
navigate
again
whatever
it's
worth,
because
we're
not
in
navigation
control
authority,
see
I'm,
saying
yes,
some
consequence
or
any
further
questions
or
comments
from
anybody.
E
I
E
I
E
Is
not
approved
either
the
site
plan
or
the
aerial,
while
those
are
helpful
depictions
of
what
might
be
constructed.
This
board
has
been
tasked
with
determining
whether
a
variant
should
be
granted
to
construct
a
72
foot
length
dock.
However,
that's
going
to
go
a
72
foot
length,
dock,
perpendicular
or
not.
That's
not
been
determined,
it's
not
in
the
purview
of
this
board
and
then
a
dock
whose
walkway
juts
from
15
feet
from
the
south,
the
South
property
line
and
52
feet
from
the
north
property
line.
K
E
G
C
K
K
B
K
B
E
E
N
K
C
C
I
I
G
Thank
you,
I
forgot
to
mention
when
I
was
up
here
earlier,
that
were
no
longer
doing
a
second-story
addition
we're
doing
a
one-story
addition,
because
we
couldn't
afford
the
two-story.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
changes
anything
the
setbacks
are
the
same,
but
then
the
second
thing,
my
understanding
after
the
first
meeting,
was
that
the
setbacks
are
measured
from
the
property
line
and
so
on.
The
side
setback,
that's
an
easy
one.
F
This
is
a
variance
to
the
non-conforming
lots
of
record
requirements
in
order
to
allow
construction
of
two
single-family
residences
residences
with
the
place
of
one
residence
on
each
lot.
These
are
non-conforming
in
the
are
70
a
zoning
district.
The
applicant
is
Habitat
for
Humanity
of
Pinellas
County.
These
are
located
on
these
cypress
tree,
the
minimum.
What
lot
width
for
that
district
of
60
feet
both
of
these
slots
are
planted
at
50
feet?
F
The
reason
that
the
applicant
is
here
today
is
because
of
the
criteria
the
contrarian
in
the
non-conforming
Lots
section
having
to
do
with
common
ownership.
The
applicant
owns
two
Lots
next
to
each
other.
The
review
criteria
for
variances
for
non-conforming
Lots
is
specifically
in
section
2,
1502
5a
enumerated
here
with
the
staff
analysis.
F
This
application
was
properly
noticed.
There
were
no
responses
received
and
just
a
summary
of
the
findings
of
fact,
the
two
Lots
lot
41
and
lot
42
are
each
individual
Lots
of
record
in
the
lake
butler
villa
Ko
subdivision.
As
of
the
date
of
the
adoption
of
the
LDC
of
the
land
development
code,
the
lake
butler
villa
Ko
subdivisions
was
planted
prior
to
1912
and
was
created
prior
to
any
zoning
ordinance
that
would
apply
to
areas
with
the
new
city
limits
number
for
both
lot
41
in
lot.
F
42
are
currently
vacant
and
neither
one
has
ever
been
combined
with
any
other
existing
neighboring
allowed
number
five.
Granting
the
variance
would
not
reduce
the
area
or
width
of
a
lot
41
or
of
a
lot
42,
so
they
would
remain
as
originally
plaited
and
number
six.
The
hardship
has
arisen
from
the
ownership
characteristics
of
the
property,
not
the
physical
property
itself
and
not
from
purchased
by
the
applicant
staff,
recommends
approval
of
the
variance
for
relief
from
the
non-conforming
lot
of
Records
requirements.
C
N
My
name
is
Ken
rush
them
CEO
at
Habitat
for
Humanity,
as
was
earlier
described.
We
purchased
these
Lots
from
a
private
owner
when
we
made
the
purchase.
Actually,
it
was
a
combined
a
lot
lot.
41
and
42
originally
plotted
as
to
individual
50
foot
wide
Lots
under
further
investigation
and
starting
to
go
into
site
planning
with
the
city
is
when
we
realized
that
the
area
was
actually
zoned
for
a
60
foot
wide
requirement
for
each
lot.
The
reason
we're
asking
for
the
variance
is
real
simple.
We
want
to
build
two
houses.
N
We
have
two
families
that
have
already
looked
at
the
Lots.
They
request
the
Tarpon
Springs,
which
we
haven't
had
lately
and,
quite
frankly,
these
have
already
been
technically
assigned
to
a
homeowner
candidate.
So
what
we
are
asking
is
that
the
city
would
grant
us
the
ability
to
go
ahead
and
build
two
single-family
residence
on
the
50
foot
wide
Lots
as
they
were
originally
planted
and,
of
course,
the
length
is
a
total
non-issue
whatsoever.
M
N
C
Q
My
name
is
Artemis
gusoff,
honest
I
live
at
541
Division
Street
in
Tarpon,
Springs
I,
also
own
the
house
at
5:40
Cypress
Street
across
the
street,
from
the
two
properties
in
question
I'm.
Also
a
real
estate
agent.
So
from
a
Realtors
perspective
is
the
way
I
see
this.
This
property
was
listed
as
one
individual
property.
It
was
sold
as
one
lot
as
one
lot.
I
see
it
as
a
conforming
lot.
H
Q
Conforming
lot
I
feel
that
it
should
stay
as
he
as
a
single-family
home.
That's
buildable
on
a
100-foot
wide
lot
by
the
length
of
the
property.
The
rules
have
been
put
in
place
to
make
changes,
even
though,
prior
to
when
the
rules
were
put
in
place,
the
lot
sizes
were
50
foot
wide.
That's
not
the
case
anymore.
So,
unfortunately,
I
opposed
to
single
family
homes
on
the
property.
I
think
it
should
be
one
single
family,
home
property,
a.
M
F
M
Q
They
were
sold
individually,
I
can
understand
if
one
person
had
purchased
a
lot
42
and
said
I
wanted
to
build
a
home
and
it's
a
non-conforming
lot.
Then
I
can
understand,
wanting
to
apply
for
a
variance
and
granting
a
variance
to
build
a
home,
but
being
that
both
properties
are
owned
jointly
and
they
are.
Q
They
were
sold
together
as
one
lot
with
a
50
with
a
100
foot
wide
length
which
meets
the
requirements
of
our
code,
then
I
think
we
should
honor
our
code
and
build
a
single-family
home
which
we're
taking
a
conformant
we're
taking
a
conforming
lat
and
turning
it
into
a
non-conforming
lat
so
that
we
can
build
two
single
family
homes
on
and
as
opposed
to
taking
in
nine.
You
know
we're
trying
to
turn
it
backwards,
even
though
we're
currently
in
a
state
where
we
can
follow
the
rules,
can.
Q
H
The
lot
has
two
different
lot
numbers
on
it,
so
my
question
back
at
you
would
be:
how
was
it
sold
as
one
lot
I
know,
both
lots
were
sold
at
one
time.
I'll
agree
with
that,
but
my
question
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
your
claim
is
if
it
was
sold
as
lot
43
and
they
split
it
up
to
41
and
42
you're
correct
lots.
The
plots
have
allowed
me
to
finish
one
second,
so
you've
made
a
statement
that
it
was
sold.
Is
one
lot,
so
it
really
wasn't.
It
was
still
sold
as
two
lots.
Q
E
H
B
B
C
B
F
B
H
Q
Q
H
F
Q
L
E
Q
Q
E
Lot
consists
of
at
least
one
entire
lot
of
record
on
the
effective
date
of
the
code.
The
lot
was
not
created
in
violation
of
a
previous
zoning
ordinance.
A
lot
was
not
combined
with
a
neighboring
law
under
common
ownership.
In
order
to
allow
the
existing
improvements
on
the
neighboring
develop
Lots
meet
after
little
setbacks.
Those
are
the
criteria
for
this
non-conforming
law.
They're,
not
your
standard
Barings
criteria,
Oh.
A
Q
Q
Personally
I
wish
I
had
more
room.
I've
tried
to
purchase
my
neighbor's
property
so
that
I
could
expand.
My
yard
I
think.
That's
probably
one
of
the
reasons
why
rules
have
gone
in
place
to
make
lot
sizes
a
little
bit
larger
so
that
you're
not
as
close
to
your
neighbors
and
it
I
think
increases
the
value
of
the
neighborhood.
Q
Q
E
E
Q
E
F
E
M
Bursch,
yes,
the,
although
the
location
map
is
not
the
best
source
of
information,
the
subject
site
it's
about
the
same
size
as
about
50
other
plots
in
the
area.
You
expect
the
city
or
anybody
that
owns
those
slots
to
double
them
up.
In
order
to
build
one
house,
that's
what
you
saying,
basically,
no
I'm,
not
changing
the
shape
of
a
city,
the
way
it's
been
done
50
years
ago.
M
Q
E
R
You
know
no
one's
ever
come
up
to
me
and
said
you
know
you
could
fit
two
houses
on
your
property
or
it's
always
something
like
man.
You
have
a
nice
big
lot
or
man.
You
have
a
bigger
lot
than
the
neighbors.
These
are
neat
brick,
red
brick
roads.
When
you're
talking
about
tarpon
springs,
I
mean
you
know.
Building
a
house
on
a
50-foot
lot,
isn't
tarpon
springs,
it
was
and
I
understand.
These
lots
are
non-conforming
right,
the
to
Lots
to
build
a
house
on
each
one.
R
R
R
You
know
here's
what
makes
sense
the
original
owners
who
bought
that
Lots
they
still
own
it.
They
come
in
original
owners
and
say
we
need
a
variance
because
we
bought
it.
However,
many
years
ago,
50-100
years
ago,
and
that
would
be
fair
right.
You
buy
Lots
everything's
legal
at
at
the
time
to
build
two
houses.
Who
cares
home?
Oh
maybe
you
leave
it
to
your
grandchildren
to
have
but
to
get
sold.
And
it's
a
part
in
this,
and
now
here
comes
a
law.
Okay,
well,
you've
got
these
two
lots
and
you
see
the
new
change.
R
Well,
make
something
happen,
then
so
it
can
carry
through
or
do
what's
right.
One
house
makes
perfect
sense
there,
it's
gonna,
look
good,
it's
gonna,
look
great
and
the
family
is
going
to
be
happy
there
think
about
the
family.
Yeah
you're
gonna
be
happy
with
any
house.
If
you
get
help
with
it,
but
you
know
that
doesn't
mean
it
has
to
be
put
in
that
kind
of
lot.
It's
it's.
It's
kind
of
common
sense,
I
mean
the
house
is
gonna,
be
nice
or
more
space.
It'll
make
the
neighborhood
look
nicer.
R
R
I
R
C
M
E
R
More
quick
thing:
as
far
as
like
building
one
house,
your
your
you're,
not
imposing
on
some
beautiful
fifty
six-year-old
live
oaks.
They
were
out
there
test
them
the
other
day
to
see
to
work
around
them.
So
it
isn't
just
some
clear,
open
slate
to
just
build
two
houses.
All
of
a
sudden,
you
know:
well,
we've
got
a
take
down
this
tree
or
whatever
it
might
be,
I
mean.
Does
that
sound
familiar
with
what
you
don't
want
happening?
R
H
H
L
H
F
F
C
F
C
E
C
N
M
N
That
we
have
to
present
tonight
about
the
sidewalk,
but
we
would
have
no
reason
like
I
said
before
we
meet
all
of
the
current
setback
requirements
for
any
single
family
residence
in
that
area.
Besides
setbacks,
front
setbacks,
rear
setbacks.
We
could
build
a
six
bedroom
house
on
that
property
and
still
meet
the
setback
requirements
at
the
city,
yeah.
E
H
E
M
M
E
Cannot
that
is
not
part
of
this
application,
the
application
that
is
before
you
is
based
on
the
non-conforming
lot.
It
doesn't
matter
what
they're
planning
on
building
there.
You
don't
have
a
setback,
variance
in
front
of
you,
you
don't
have
anything
that
requires
a
site
plan
and
they're
not
required
to
provide
it.
So
no,
okay,.
M
M
M
C
L
F
F
The
stamp
report
in
background
describe
basically
what
is
currently
existing
on
East
Cypress
Street.
In
this.
This
is
the
500
block
of
the
Cypress
Street
there
are.
There
is
one
sidewalk
section
on
the
north
side,
that's
built
at
Levis
and
a
Cypress.
There
are
no
other
sidewalk
sections
on
the
head
side.
The
south
side
has
a
sidewalk
south
side
of
East.
Cypress
Street
has
a
sidewalk
extending
its
entire
length.
F
The
review
criteria
for
variances
is
for
the
sidewalk
waiver.
That's
in
Section
130
to
0.01
B
of
your
code,
the
applicant
just
a
little
more
background,
and
this
is
part
part
of
the
analysis.
The
applicant
has
requested
this
to
basically
to
avoid
removing
or
impacting
for
trees
that
they
list
at
least
three
of
which
we've
confirmed,
are
protected.
F
Trees
and
the
the
city
has
looked
at
this
area
and
the
trees
may
be
impacted
by
the
construction,
regardless
of
who
constructs
the
sidewalk,
but
there
don't
seem
to
be
any
other
impediments
to
physical
impediments
to
construction
of
the
sidewalk.
The
property
is
located
within
the
basically
downtown
area,
very
close
or
in
town
area,
very
close
to
community
amenities
like
the
elementary
school
and
other
shopping,
fairly
close
to
trail
and
pedestrian
connections,
and
this
would
be
an
area
that
the
city
sidewalk
program
would
likely
prioritize
for
installation
of
sidewalks.
F
So
we
looked
at
both
the
conditions
on
site
and
basically
the
justification
for
for
whether
the
sidewalk
should
or
should
not
be
constructed.
This
was
properly
noticed.
There
were
no
responses
received
just
like
to
summarize
the
findings,
just
starting
with
number
two.
We've
already
covered
the
description
of
the
of
the
proposal
number
two
on
page
four,
the
staff
report,
the
environmental
conditions,
as
stated
by
the
applicant,
indicate
that
installation
the
required
sidewalk
segments
would
damage
existing
protected
trees.
There
appear
to
be
no
other
physical
impediments
to
sidewalk
construction
in
this
area
number
three.
F
There
is
one
existing
sidewalk
segment
built
on
a
northwest
corner
of
East
Cypress
Street,
and
then
there
is
a
sidewalk
on
the
south
side.
North
side
includes
six
built
residential
properties
and
three
vacant
properties
to
avoid
dirt.
Under
the
applicants
ownership,
the
stated
need
number
four
for
the
waiver
arises
from
the
anticipated
damage
to
the
trees.
However,
this
is
not
unique
to
the
property
with
respect
to
planned
sidewalks
in
the
city,
based
on
the
current
knowledge
of
conditions
that
is
presumed
to
be
otherwise
practical
to
design
and
construct
the
sidewalk
along
the
right-of-way
number.
F
Five,
the
conditions
of
the
property
were
not
self
created
and
did
not
result
from
an
action
by
the
applicant
number.
Six.
The
right-of-way
area
is
presumably
sufficient
to
accommodate
a
sidewalk
since
there's
one
already
there.
There
is
no
addition
over
it.
If
we
needed
and
then
number
seven
strict
application
of
the
sidewalk
construction
requirement
would
not
be
technically
impractical
in
terms
of
engineering
design,
but
could
presumably
in
fact
protect
the
trees
located
along
the
right-of-way
and
near
the
front
property
line
of
the
applicants
line.
F
I
did
not
determine
by
the
way
whether
the
choice
were
were
which
trees
were
on
the
property,
as
opposed
to
the
right-of-way
they're
all
either
in
the
right-of-way
or
very
close
to
it.
Staff
recommends
denial
of
the
waiver
or
of
the
requirement
for
sidewalk
construction
based
on
the
applicant,
not
meeting
all
of
the
criteria
or
that
waiver.
E
Meeting
you
guys
don't
see
these
very
often,
so
these
are
different
criteria
than
your
normal
criteria.
They
must
meet
one
and
two
and
then
one
of
the
other
four.
So
they
have
to
meet
one
and
two
on
page
three
and
then
they
have
to
meet
one
of
the
four
on
page
three
and
four.
So
one
into
on
pages,
two
and
three
and
then
one
of
the
four
on
pages
three
and
fourth,
and
if
I've
just
confused
you.
N
So,
as
was
described,
the
sidewalk
actually
to
the
to
the
neighbor's
mention
of
the
trees
earlier,
we've
actually
had
a
certified
arborist
go
out.
Look
at
both
Lots
he's
actually
identified
every
tree
on
both
Lots
identified
them
from
a
base
of
species
through
trees
that
are
protected
through
the
Pinellas
County
and
the
city
of
Tarpon
Springs,
there's
one
tree
that
actually
is
the
one
that
we're
more
worried
about
than
anything
else.
N
N
The
sidewalk
would
have
actually
impact
the
root
system
of
that
tree
because
8
feet
or
so
of
the
easement
itself,
to
put
the
sidewalk
in,
is
within
that
20
foot
diameter
other
than
that
there
are
a
couple
Sabal
palms,
which
technically
are
protected
by
the
state
of
Florida
and
I
won't
go
there,
but
on
a
lot,
42
there's
also
two
other
obstructions
that
I
don't
know
that
we're
the
Wreckers.
There
is
a
power
pole
that
is
within
the
easement.
That
also
would
be
a
hindrance
to
go
around.
That
is
really
not
a
movable
obstruction.
N
I
have
Duke,
Energy
would
probably
say
sorry
and
there's
also
a
transformer
type
pedestal.
That's
actually
out
in
the
easement
area
as
well.
The
sidewalk
is
is
one
of
these
things
we
run
into
in
every
municipality
throughout
the
county.
I
know
it's
a
big
thing
now
walking
traffic
is
a
big
thing:
pedestrian
traffic.
We
see
this
a
lot
for
older
neighborhoods
that
have
not
had
the
variance
basically
was
based
on
this
criteria.
I
actually
asked
one
of
our
staff
members.
N
If
we
were
to
reduce
the
size
of
a
pedestrian
sidewalk
to
a
3
foot
as
the
4
foot,
that's
actually
required,
would
we
be
able
to
get
at
least
a
three
foot?
Pedestrian
the
pedestals
in
the
poll?
The
requirement
from
the
building
department
we
were
told:
is
that
sidewalk
a
story
being
two
feet
off
of
those
obstructions,
a
vertical
obstruction?
N
So
again,
if
you
take
the
power
pole
and
you
move
that
sidewalk
2
feet
were
almost
encroaching
on
the
actual
property
owners
property,
but
we
actually
feel
that
we
could
probably
put
a
3
foot
sidewalk
down
along
that
easement
area,
with
less
impact
of
the
root
systems
of
the
trees
that
are
there
and
also
to
still
be
able
to
snake
it
around
the
actual
vertical
obstructions
that
are
there
as
well.
I
know,
that's
probably
not
written
into
this
variance.
N
That
was
just
something
we
talked
about
right
before
I
came
up
here
this
evening,
so
I
mean
we
understand
the
city's
viewpoint
on
the
sidewalks.
We
don't
want
you
to
think
that
we're
totally
objecting
sidewalks
in
general.
That's
not
what
we're
here
for,
but
there
are
a
couple
of
underlying
effects
with
the
easement
and
the
trees
and
the
other
vertical
obstructions.
Thank
you.
So.
C
I
M
C
N
Survey
that
was
provided
dated,
20
or
I'm
sorry,
ten.
Sixteen
twenty
seventeen
is
called
a
tree
and
elevation
survey.
Every
tree
is
actually
labeled
and
marked
as
well
as
utility,
poles,
water
meters
transformers.
If
this
is
the
actual
survey
that
was
provided
in
your
packet,
there's
even
a
legend
on
the
left
hand
side
that
legends
all
the
types
of
trees
on
the
property.
N
A
lot
and
actually
we've
actually,
the
reason
we
did
the
tree
survey
on
these
property
is
because
we
want
to
do
is
less
impact
any
of
the
trees
that
absolutely
need
to
be
kept
on
the
property.
So
we're
actually
going
to
be
shifting
a
lot.
Forty
one,
that
house
is
actually
going
to
be
back
off
the
front
of
the
road
further
than
normal,
which
still
is
fine
with
far
as
the
setback
requirements,
because
we
don't
want
to
impact
the
34
inch
oak
tree.
I
Q
B
I
F
F
Q
It
quick
there's
a
section
of
the
500
block
that
doesn't
have
sidewalk
and
a
section
and
most
and
all
of
the
600
block,
but
the
400
block
all
the
way
to
Ring
Street
has
sidewalks
on
both
sides
of
the
street
and
also
on
the
other
side
of
distance.
So
it's
a
two
block
section,
that's
lacking
sidewalk.
Thank.
E
N
No
thank
you.
You
know
the
only
thing
that
we
would
say
again
if
the
city
is
actually
planning
on
putting
a
sidewalk
in
and
in
front
of
these
two
houses
down
the
road
I
mean
our
first
request,
for
the
variance
would
be
certainly
be
a
stronger
request.
Thanks
I
would
say
that
they
would
then
determine
the
impact
on
the
trees,
the
impact
on
the
power
poles,
the
other
transformers,
and
things
like
that.
So
I
would
go
back
to
my
first
request
for
the
variance
and
say
the
city
can
deal
with
this
after
the
fact.
N
That
would
be
perfectly
fine
with
us.
We
know
that
that's
going
to
be
the
impact
and
something
that
they're
looking
forward
to
doing
in
the
future.
However,
if
there
were,
if
it
needed
to
be
done
today,
if
you
guys
decide
the
request,
we
understand
that
we
would
be
willing,
but
we're
only
asking
for
an
exception
in
the
four
foot
width
and
again,
I
can
tell
you
right
now.
This
issue
comes
up
with
us
a
lot.
We
are
also
concerned
that
four-foot
wide
sidewalks
are
for
a
reason,
because
they're,
safe
sidewalk
they're
for
pedestrian
and
bicycles.
N
C
I
E
E
On
the
waiver,
this
is
not.
This
is
not
a
typical
variance.
I
know
that
it's
it's
styled
as
says
it's
a
variance,
but
it's
actually
a
waiver
and
the
criteria
are
different
from
your
regular
criteria.
This
is
found
underneath
a
completely
different
section
of
code
that
doesn't
allow
you
to
place
conditions
on
your
on
your
decision.
Thank
you.
I'm.
E
Well,
and
let
me
clarify
something:
one
of
the
criteria
is
that
it
it's
if
it
is
not
included,
is
the
responsibility,
responsible
jurisdictions,
five-year
capital
improvement
plan.
So
if
it's
in
the
five
year,
capital
improvement
plan
and
that's
one
of
the
four
criteria
that
you
know
the
two
plus
one-
that's
part
of
the
one
so
I
would
ask.
Maybe
that
you
ask
staff
for
clarification.
If
that's
in
the
five
year
plan,
because
I
don't
believe
that
testimony
really
bore
out
and
then
I
believe
staff
has
one
more
we'd.
F
C
E
N
C
C
C
E
C
E
N
F
F
F
M
C
C
C
C
C
F
C
I
have
another
procedural
question:
the
name
the
applicant
came
across
my
desk
and
I
recalled
that
name
many
years
ago
and
I
couldn't
figure
out
what
and
then
I
saw
their
place
of
prior
residence,
which
is
my
ex
in-laws
Allison
Park
Pennsylvania,
but
could
I
ask
the
applicants?
Where
did
they
buy
some
property
off
of
Sunset
Beach
from
Miss
wiedemann?
Maybe
25
years
ago,
I
was
the
attorney.
C
E
F
This
is
a
request
to
authorize
a
variance
to
reduce
the
required
side
yard
setback
in
order
to
construct,
in
addition,
with
enclosed
staircase,
doing
existing
single-family
residence
located
1626
Seabreeze
Drive
zoning,
our
100
leondis
residential,
though
this
basically
the
current
residence
was
built.
The
existing
was
built
in
1959,
it's
some
below
the
required
flood
elevation.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
add
a
vertical
addition
within
the
footprint
of
the
existing
home,
but
to
access
that
there
is
a
staircase
would
be
needed
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
that
that
be
placed
in
the
required
side
yard
setback.
F
If
you
look
at
page
2
the
staff
report,
there
is
a
table
kind
of
showing
the
relationships
of
the
setbacks.
The
r100
district
requires
a
minimum
of
10
feet
for
a
single
yard
and
a
minimum
of
25
feet
for
combined
yards.
The
existing
home
is
has
a
Western
setback
of
8.1
feet
from
the
West
property
line,
and
the
east
setback
is
17.9
feet.
F
F
F
Summary
of
findings
of
fact,
I've
covered
the
description
of
the
proposal.
Item
number
3
on
page
fourth,
limited
width
of
the
applicants
lot
and
I
did
think
alike.
To
mention
this
is
this:
lot
is
non-conforming
with
respect
to
width
at
70
feet
wide.
The
district
minimum
is
75.
The
limited
with
the
applicants
lot
presents
a
physical
difficulty
with
respect
to
shape
that
does
not
generally
apply
to
other
Lots
within
the
r100
Sonnen
district.
F
In
addition,
the
requirement
to
elevate
the
addition
to
the
home
to
comply
with
flood
being
floodplain
limits,
the
applicants
options
with
respect
to
providing
access
to
the
addition
number
for
the
condition
has
not
been
self
created
by
the
applicant.
It's
a
result
of
the
physical
condition
of
the
property
itself
number
five:
littoral
enforcement
of
the
side
yard
setback
would
prevent
the
applicant
from
providing
a
reasonable
access
to
this
vertical
addition
to
meet
flood
plain
requirements
and
would
therefore
deny
the
applicant
reasonable
use
of
the
property
number
six.
F
Granting
the
variance
would
not
confer
any
special
privilege
on
privileges
on
the
applicant
either
with
respect
to
the
use
or
the
layout.
The
analysis
does
go
through
some
of
the
characteristics
of
the
area.
There
are
different
shapes
and
sizes
of
Lots
here,
and
there
are
several
rooms
that
appear
to
be
very
close
to
the
property
lines.
F
These
are
several
older
homes
and
we
do
have
differences
in
in
in
the
elevations
of
the
homes
because
of
redevelopment
and
new
and
older
development
number
seven
granting
of
the
variance
would
not
injure,
in
fact
the
rights
of
owners
affected
properties
or
create
a
nuisance
or
otherwise
substantially
negatively
negatively
impacts
surrounding
properties.
Since
the
purpose
of
side,
yards
is
substantially
upheld
and
the
minimum
10-foot
side
or
the
applicant
decides
where
the
applicant
is
proposing.