![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FiJUdQ4Xnmg/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments September 30, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
E
A
A
E
Let
me
let
me
circle
back
with
with
shannon
in
the
building
department,
she's,
our
arborist
and
whatnot.
I
know
you
don't
need
a
permit,
but
you
may
just
need
to
give
us
a
quick
plan
of
how
you're
gonna,
not
just
you
know
if
you
do
need
to
disturb
you
know
how
you
how
you're
gonna
restore
it.
So
let
me
let
me
get.
Let
me
circle
back
with
you
tomorrow.
A
E
You
can
submit
the
permit,
you
know
as
soon
as
tomorrow
I
mean
we
have
it
on
record,
you
know.
So
that's
no
problem.
Thank.
C
Okay,
if
everyone's
ready
call
board
of
adjustment
meeting
to
order
september
30th,
2020
7
p.m,
roll
call
please.
C
B
F
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
hearing,
wherein
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
facts
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
applied
those
findings
of
fact
to
previously
established
criteria
contained
in
the
code
of
ordinances
in
order
to
make
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
before
it.
F
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
at
this
hearing
that
the
law
considers
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
to
the
issues.
If
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
met
the
criteria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinance,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
in
favor
of
the
applicant.
F
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
defined
against
the
applicant.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
board
wishing
to
disclose
any
exported
communications
or
conflicts
of
interest
this
evening,
seeing
none
anyone
wishing
to
speak
this
evening?
If
you
could,
please
raise
your
right
hand
to
be
sworn.
F
C
Okay,
so
we're
going
to
go
to
application
number
20-89,
variance
to
decrease
the
rear
yard
setback,
location,
northeast
corner
of
west
bayshore
and
lucille
drive
staff.
Do
you
have
your.
E
E
There's
a
series
of
lots
in
here
that
were
rezoned
back
in
2018
in
order
to
recognize
the
smaller
lot
sizes
that
were
not
at
that
point
compatible
with
or
in
compliance
with
the
r100
zoning.
So
the
zoning
nails
are
70a.
E
There
are
some
unique
properties
about
this
particular
lot.
The
variance
is
requested
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
from
25
feet
to
22
feet
and
here's
the
property
survey,
and
you
can
see
there.
There
are
no
right
angles
to
any
intersections
of
these
property
lines.
So
you
have
some
unique
property
angle
that
the
applicant
is
dealing
with
with
this
particular
house
plan.
E
Looking
at
the
site
layout,
the
area
of
encroachment
is
just
this
very
small
triangle
of
of
property.
That
amounts
to
about
35
square
feet
and
a
little
more
than
two
but
less
than
three
foot
encroachment
into
the
required
25
foot,
rear
yard.
You
can
see
that
they
do
have
the
house
push
as
far
forward
as
they
can.
They
run
into
the
hard
stop
with
the
25
foot
front
yard.
Again
you
can
see
with
the
angled
property
lines
that
that
you
know
you're.
Just
it's.
E
The
kind
of
the
parallelogram
effect
of
this
particular
house
plan
encroaching
in
that
one
corner.
E
Under
the
review
criteria,
staff
finds
that
criteria,
one
two
4
and
5
are
have
been
met,
those
being
the
hardship
arises
from
something
that
is
unique
to
the
property.
It's
not
self-created,
granting
the
variance
would
not
confer
special
privilege,
and
nor
would
it
diminish
property
values
or
injury,
the
rights
of
others.
This
is
a
single-family
house
in
a
single-family
neighborhood,
that's
proposed
to
be
built
criteria.
Number
three
is
a
little
less
clear.
E
Would
literally
literal
enforcement
of
the
regulations
deprived
of
reasonable
use.
That's
a
very
hard
criteria
to
meet.
I
mean
the
plan
could
be
redesigned
to
not
require
that
two-foot
encroachment
or
two-and-a-half
foot
encroachment,
but
for
this
particular
application
we
do
find
it
is
the
minimum
necessary
variance,
given
the
very
minor
nature
of
the
of
the
encroachment
I'm
going
to
stop
sharing
my
screen
here.
E
We
are
recommending
staff
is
recommending
approval,
recognizing
that
there
is
an
equal
offset
on
the
other
side
of
the
property
on
the
rear
yard,
that's
actually
greater
than
the
25
foot
by
an
almost
equivalent
of
the
encroachment.
So
with
that
staff
recommendation,
even
though
criteria
three
is
albeit
very
difficult
to
establish,
we
still
recommend
approval
due
to
the
very
limited
nature
of
the
encroachment.
A
Just
reiterating
what
renee
said
just
trying
to
so
the
setbacks
on
the
side
of
the
house
are
equal
and
16
feet
on
the
perimeter
of
the
the
home
itself.
I
I
can't
fit
the
standard
plan
that
I
I
build.
It's
actually
for
my
daughter
and
my
my
future
son-in-law,
and
I
just
would
hope
that
you
would
approve
this.
We've
got
the
plan.
A
Michael
willenbacher
gulf
wind
homes,
his
name,
the
company
and
again
the
applicant,
they
did
close
on
the
property
on
friday.
A
So
I
understand
the
applicant
is
under
the
prior
name
in
ownership,
but
code
of
brethren
and
kirsten
willenbacher
are
now
owners
a
lot,
and
I
don't
that
makes
a
difference
or
not
what
we're
doing
here
today.
But
I
would
appreciate,
if
you'd
approve
this
and
we
get
moving
forward
on
the
home.
E
C
E
For
the
record,
I
think
I
think
miss
protos
did
call
just
to
ask
about
the
variance,
but
she
did
not
express
any
objection.
A
C
C
C
Okay,
mr
eisner,
yes,
I
don't
see
you.
G
G
I
do
have
I
don't
know
if
this
question
is
for
mr
willenbacher
or
if
this
is
for
staff
or
for
our
attorney
you,
mr
willenbacher,
you
had
mentioned
that
the
application
for
the
variants
was
under
the
name
of
the
previous
property
owner,
but
your
client
that
you're
representing
has
since
closed
on
the
property,
so
is
now
the
new
owner.
I
just
wanted
to
get
clarification
if
we
were
to
grant
this
variance
that
this
variance
does
follow
with
the
property.
Is
this
correct?
F
Yes,
that
would
just
like
any
other
variance.
That's
granted,
it
does
run
with
the
lane
and
you
guys
have
kind
of
seen
us
in
the
past
where
you've
got
a
contingent
purchase
contract
and
the
applicant
is
the
purchaser
of
the
property,
but
the
property
is
actually
still
owned
by
someone
else.
The
variance
does
run
with
the
land,
so
if
it's
granted
and
they
ultimately
end
up
purchasing
the
property.
In
this
case
the
property
is
owned
by
somebody
else.
F
E
A
F
But
you
gave
testimony
on
the
record
that
the
about
the
private
property
owner
there
are
about
the
previous
property
owner
and
the
current
property
owner
with
the
closing.
So
there
is
enough
sufficient
record
evidence
in
order
to
make
the
determination
and
grant
the
variance
or
deny
the
variance,
as
stated.
C
D
C
B
E
Thank
you.
I
would
like
to
take
a
moment
to
introduce
allie
keene
ali
is
our
new
senior
planner.
We
hired
away
from
pinellas,
county
and
prior
to
attending
with
pinellas
county.
She
worked
for
the
city
of
columbus
columbus
indiana,
so
she
has
a
lot
of
good
experience,
both
in
long
and
short
range
planning
and
in
the
fullness
of
time
she
will
probably
become
staff
support
to
the
board
of
adjustments.
So
I
just
wanted
to
introduce
her
to
everyone
and
welcome
her.
B
Hello,
I
I'm
happy
to
be
here-
I'm
excited
to
be
in
a
a
smaller
entity,
and
I
think
this
is
me
a
good
fit
so
you'll
be
seeing.
C
E
E
C
C
C
So
anybody
else
mike
usually
have
something
to
say
I
usually
do,
but
this
was
an
open
and
closed,
open
and
shut
case
yeah.
This
is
the
smoothest
I
think
we've
ever
done.
So
thank
you
to
everybody
thanks
to
mark
and
mike
for
running
the
video
and
the
computer
and
everything-
and
you
guys
are
amazing-
all
right.