![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Mr4bZ30QLYw/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments August 26, 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).
A
B
C
E
E
Okay,
I'm
gonna
call
to
order
tonight's
meeting
7
p.m.
August!
E
26Th
you
there
kim
did
you
okay,
roll
call.
E
D
B
G
E
Okay,
so
I
see
we
have
some
new
members.
I
guess
we'll
give
you
a
chance
after
we
hear
this
item
to
introduce
yourselves
and
I
guess
we
lost
mr
bolton.
We
have
two
new
members
nice
to
meet
you
so
we'll
get
to
that
more
formally.
When
we
get
to
board
comments,
so
I'm
going
to
call
the
application.
E
H
Okay,
so
this
is
the
board's
the
board
of
adjustments,
quasi-additional
procedures
that
I
will
read
for
all
the
audience
and
participants.
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
where
the
board
of
adjustment
acts
in
a
quasi-judicial
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity
as
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
It
is
not
the
board
of
adjustments
function
to
make
law,
but
rather
to
apply
law
that
has
already
been
established
in
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
H
H
The
city
staff
will
present
its
testimony
and
evidence
first,
the
applicant
will
then
have
an
opportunity
to
cross-examine
the
city
staff.
The
applicant
will
then
present
its
testimony
and
witnesses.
The
city
staff
will
have
an
opportunity
to
cross-examine
the
applicant's
witnesses.
Members
of
the
public
opposing
the
application
will
then
be
given
an
opportunity
to
present
testimony.
H
H
H
At
this
point,
I
will
swear
in
all
witnesses
who
intend
to
offer
testimony
at
this
hearing.
H
So
if
everyone
who
is
going
to
provide
testimony
whether
you're,
the
applicant
or
a
city
staff
or
citizens,
if
you
would
please
raise
your
right
hand,
do
you
swear
or
affirm
that
the
testimony
that
you
are
about
to
give
in
this
proceeding
is
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
If
you
say
I
do.
H
Okay,
thank
you
and
if
anyone
does
decide
to
testify
who
has
not
already
been
sworn
in,
if
you
could
alert
the
chair
to
that
fact-
and
I
will
swear
you
in
at
that
time-
mr
chair
is
back
to
you.
E
E
I
E
I
Okay,
good
all
right
so
again,
mcneese
principal
planner.
This
is
a
request
to
authorize
a
dock
and
boat,
lift
covered
boat,
lift
that
does
not
meet
the
demand,
basically,
the
dimensional
criteria
in
the
city's
coast,
so
this
is
located
at
184
north
spring
boulevard,
and
our
code
requires
the
docks,
the
walkways
and
the
docks
to
be
in
the
center
one
third
of
the
waterfront
width
of
the
property,
and
it
restricts
the
lengths
length
of
the
dock
to
half
of
the
width
of
the
waterfront
property.
I
So
this
property
is
located
here
along
spring
bayou.
I
This
picture
shows
a
previous
dock
that
has
been
demolished
and
the
applicant
would
like
to
replace
that
this
is
the
property
survey
that
was
submitted
by
the
applicant
again
shows
that
previous
stock
that
was
apparently
there
when,
when
the
survey
was
done,
this
stock
exceeds
the
proposed
stock
exceeds
both
the
length
requirement
and
it
encroaches
beyond
the
center
one
third
of
the
riparian
lines
of
the
property.
So
if
you
look
at
width
of
the
property
is
about
35
feet.
I
I
And
this
just
shows
just
a
kind
of
a
sketch
that
staff
tried
to
put
together
of
the
approximate
center
one.
Third,
in
those
green
lines
and
the
approximate
area
that
this
proposed
dock
would
take
up.
I
I
With
about
five
or
six
feet,
as
you
can
see,
because
of
the
lift
and
the
terminal
platform,
there
is
a
wider
area
at
the
end
of
the
dock
than
would
be
alone,
the
applicant
could
go
ahead
and
and
get
this
permitted
if
the
adjacent
owners
on
either
side
were
to
sign
off,
the
applicant
was
able
to
get
a
sign
off
from
the
northern
neighbor,
who
is
actually
the
most
affected
by
this
layout,
but
was
not
able
to
get
a
sign
off
from
the
sub
the
southern
adjacent
labor
again.
I
This
is
an
oddly
shaped
lot.
The
circumstances
were
not
created
by
the
applicant.
I
The
the
frontage
of
the
lot
is
somewhat
curved
and
it's
very
small.
This
is
just
a
sketch
of
the
elevation
of
the
proposed
dog
so
hitting
on
your
review
criteria.
Again
this
hardship
from
the
physical
condition
or
shape
of
the
lot
that
is
unique
to
this
property.
I
With
respect
to
number
three
staff
feels
that
the
applicant
could
construct
a
dock
of
some
sort
that
would
comply
with
the
code
and
therefore
that
this
did
not
rise
to
deprivation
of
reasonable
use.
In
this
case,
that
was
one
that
we
felt
was
not
met.
I
Since
the
staff
report
was
submitted
and
provided
to
you,
the
applicant
has
submitted
additional
information
which
was
sent
this
morning.
I
do
have
that
available
if
we
need
the
regarding
water
depths
on
that,
any
applicant
will
will
I'm
sure,
present
and
talk
about
that
with
respect
to
water
depth,
the
city
does
not
have
any
standards.
I
The
county
does
have
standards
once
the
city
approves
a
doc
based
on
its
basically
two-dimensional
criteria,
which
is
all
we
really
have
in
our
code.
I
I
I
Okay
staff
does
not
feel
that
the
approval
of
this
stock
would
injure
or
diminish
property
value
in
the
area.
There
are
other
decks.
Similar
docks,
larger
docks
in
the.
J
I
The
property
owner
most
affected,
as
I
mentioned,
is
the
one
to
the
north
and
he
that
owner
the
property
owner
to
the
south
has
not
signed
off.
They
have
about
118
feet
of
waterfront
width,
and
we
do
not
believe
that
this
would
diminish
their
enjoyment
of
the
water
or
their
property
value.
I
This
this
application
was
noticed
and
we
received
since
the
staff
report.
We
have
received
one
written
response
which,
if
that
I
don't
know
if
that
person
is
here,
who's
from
the
northern
sorry
from
the
southern
neighbor,
so
they
may
be
here
to
testify
or
the
email
can
be
read
into
the
record
by
kim
and
staff
is
recommending
denial
of
this
variance
for
relief
from
the
doc
length
and
doc
centering
criteria
based
on
our
evaluation,
that
it
does
not
meet
all
five
of
your
criteria.
F
Do
the
doc
builders
deductibles
the
owners,
do
they
need
to
have
the
signature
of
the
south
and
north
residents
in
order
to
move
forward.
I
If
they
have
the
signature
of
the
south
and
north
residents,
they
could
move
forward
without
the
variable
we
would
have
approved
the
permit,
and
I
should
have
mentioned.
I
did
fail
to
mention
that
this
doc
did
go
to
the
heritage
preservation
team
for
review
and
the
applicant
did
receive
a
certificate
of
approval
for
this
doctor's
name
and
size
and
layout.
I
F
F
I
The
two
criteria
that
are
before
you
are
with
respect
to
the
the
position
of
the
dock
along
the
along
the
width
of
his
property
and
the
length
of
the
not
the
design
of
the
dock
and.
F
So
he
can
decide
or
she
they
can
decide
to
build
this
boat
boat
cover
or
not.
I
Yes,
I
mean
the
heritage:
preservation
board
did
approve
the
boat
cover,
so
it
it
could
be.
It
would
have
to
be
built
as
approved
by
hpb,
but
they
don't
have
to
put
the
cover
on
if
they
don't
want
to.
F
I
misunderstood,
I
didn't
hear
you
through
the
zoom.
Did
you
say
that
the
the
other
they
agreed
to
it
or
they
didn't
agree
to
it.
I
They
did
agree
to
it,
so
the
the
design
that
you
saw
in
the
picture
in
the
slideshow-
and
I
can
put
that
back
up
if
needed,
that
was
approved
by
a
heritage
preservation
board
now,
if
they
choose
not
to
build
the
cover
they
don't
have
to
they
can't
they
can't
do
a
different
design.
Do
you
see
what
I
mean?
Yes,.
F
I
J
Thank
you
so,
following
up
on
mr
eisner's
clarification,
we
are
deciding
position
as
opposed
in
reference
to
the
one-third
the
center
one.
Third,
so
position
relative
the
posit
to
the
one-third
length
and
width
or
not
width,
because
width
is
irrelevant.
It's
more
of
the
does
the
width
impact.
J
I
The
proposed
length
and
probably
should
have
been
just
spelled
out
in
the
staff
report.
It's.
I
Yeah,
and
that
is
illustrated
in
your
packet
on
the
ameridox,
drawing.
J
And
I
don't
want
to
fall
out
of
turn
on
this,
so
council
can
tell
me
to
hold
off
if
this
needs
to
be
addressed
at
a
different
point.
But
is
this
a
time
to
continue
asking
miss
mcneese
questions,
or
do
we
want
to
hold
that?
For
another
point?.
H
The
the
chair
basically
controls
his
board,
and
so
if
the
chair
allows
members
to
to
ask
questions
at
this
time,
that's
perfectly
fine.
J
G
H
E
E
J
No,
I
just
wanted
to
say
you
know
what
direction
did
you
want
to
go?
Do
we
want
to
keep
asking
miss
mcneese
questions
or
hold
that
gotcha.
D
I
D
E
So
I
guess
we're
going
to
move
on
to
the
presentation
from
the
applicant.
E
Mr
and
mrs
kuchman,
hello,
hello,
this
is
your
time
to
give
us
your
presentation.
C
Hello
and
thank
you
very
much
for
the
time.
I
really
appreciate
all
of
your
time.
I
hope
that
everyone
got
all
the
information.
J
C
Submitted
all
the
pictures
on
the
video,
we
feel
that
the
doc
is
not
large
or
inappropriate
or
any
way
encroaching
upon
our
neighbor's
sight
line
based
on
those
pictures
and
the
video,
as
pat
pointed
out
our
our
southern
most
neighbor,
who
signed
off
on
it,
would
actually
be
the
one
that
would
be
the
most
impacted
and
they
didn't
have
a
a
problem
with
it.
We
do.
We
have
been
trying,
unsuccessfully,
for
over
six
months,
to
get
the
southern
neighbor
to
give
us
a
yes
or
no.
E
C
I
just
I
just
basically
want
to
say
that
you
know
when
we
purchased
the
house
about
a
year
ago.
The
existing
dock
was
an
eyesore,
a
danger
and
in
violation-
and
we
did
have
it
removed
and
we're
really.
I
feel
not
asking
for
anything
unusual
based
on
the.
C
That
are
that
are
up
on
the
bayou,
and
certainly
we
would
never
want
to
encroach
or
infringe
on
anyone's
view.
But,
as
demonstrated
in
the
pictures
in
the
video,
we
really
feel
that
we're
still
in
our
property,
but
we're
just
going
over
a
little
bit
outside
of
that
middle.
And
we
really
don't
feel
that
we're
we're
hurting
anyone's
view.
K
So
I
would
also
like
to
add
that
I
mean
just
just
to
fit.
We
feel
like
this
is
kind
of
an
average
sized
dock.
I'm
actually
looking
out
the
window
right
now
at
all
the
other
ones.
The
dock
we're
building
is
the
same
size
or
less
than
those,
and
just
because
of
the
constraints
and
the
strange
angle
of
our
property
there
and
how
it's
a
pie
shape.
K
We,
we
can't
really
fit
anything
in
there,
so
that
I
mean
we're
just
trying
to
build
a
standard
dock,
just
like
the
rest
of
the
neighbors
here
have
just
to
lift
our
boat
and
enjoy
the
bayou,
as
everyone
else
does,
and
we've
we've
repeatedly
tried
to
get
the
neighbors
to
sign
off
on
it.
K
I
don't
know
if
you've
been
able
to
read
through
the
packet
there's
some
pretty
extensive
information
that
I
provided
yesterday
about
how
they've
been
handling
us,
and
it
doesn't
seem
very
fair
to
us
and
we're
just
trying
to
utilize
this
board
to
hopefully
see
our
point
of
view
here
and
support
us.
A
B
B
E
That's
great:
where
is
this
gentleman?
Is
he
on.
G
A
E
A
And
really,
I'm
just
here
to
support
what
was
stated
in
the
for
the
record
in
my
recent
email
from
last
friday,.
B
It
says
two
members
of
the
board
of
adjustment
city
of
tarpon
springs
florida,
patricia
mcneese
principal
planner,
kimberly,
others
secretary
to
the
board
from
jeffrey
c,
shannon
as
the
manager
of
wake
forest,
real
estate
holdings,
llc,
wake
forest
llc
owner
of
the
property,
the
wake
forest
property
located
at
170
and
a
half
north
spring
boulevard
tarpon
springs
florida
which
joins
the
property.
B
The
kuchman
property
located
at
184
north,
to
which
the
new
dock
will
be
affixed
application
2082
the
application
184
north
spring
boulevard,
derrick
and
carol
coochman
request
requested
variants,
the
requested
variants
to
construct
a
adjacent
to
the
kuchman
property,
a
single
family,
residential
dock,
with
a
covered
boat,
lift
the
new
dock
that
exceeds
the
maximum
allowable
length
and
is
located
outside
of
the
center
one.
Third
of
the
extended
property
lines
at
the
waterfront
as
the
manager
of
wake
forest
llc,
I'm
in
receipt
of
the
public
notice
of
the
requested
variants
from
the
board
of
adjustment.
B
The
wake
forest
certify
as
to
the
ownership
of
the
wake
forest
property
acknowledge
the
wake
forest
llc
has
reviewed
the
plans
for
the
new
dock
and
memorialized
whether
wake
forest
llc
objects
or
does
not
object
to
the
new
dock.
At
the
time.
Wake
forest
llc
did
not
respond
to
the
request
to
execute
the
jointer
to
a
variance
request
form
because
it
appeared
to
be
pre-populated
with
the
box
next
to
do
not
object,
already
checked.
B
As
a
result,
if
wake
forest
llc
was
to
have
checked
the
alternative
box
for
do
object,
its
response
may
have
been
at
a
minimum,
confusing
to
the
board
of
adjustment
or
worse
disregarded,
because
both
boxes
were
checked
and
wake.
Forest
llc's
intentions
could
not
be
confirmed
in
anticipation
of
the
upcoming
board
of
adjustment
august
26
2020
regular
meeting
at
the
at
which
the
application
will
be
heard.
Wake
forest
desires,
declare
desires
to
clarify
and
memorialize
the
following
with
respect
to
the
application.
B
Wake
forest
llc
is
actually
the
most
severely
affected
property
owner
as
a
the
boundaries
of
the
wake.
Forest
property
are
the
closest
to
the
boundary
of
the
couchman
property,
where
the
new
dock
will
be
located
b.
Wake
forest
llc
is
the
property
owner
next
to
the
area
of
most
impact,
which
is
the
covered
boat,
lift
and
see.
The
new
dock,
if
situated
at
the
proposed
location,
would
be
almost
directly
in
front
of
and
partially
block,
particularly
with
the
covered
boat,
lift
the
water
view
from
the
wake
forest
property.
B
The
new
dock
could
injure
or
impact
wake
forest's
rights
and
substantially
negatively
impact
wake.
Forest
property
and
wake
forest
hereby
does
object
to
the
new
dock
and,
as
a
result,
the
requested
variant
and
further
requests
that
a
new
doc
should
not
be
allowed
by
the
board
of
adjustments
to
be
constructed
and
b.
The
requested
variants
should
be
unequivocally
denied.
B
Should
you
have
any
questions
regarding
wake
forest
llc's
response
to
the
requested
variants?
Please
contact
me.
A
copy
of
this
correspondence
is
being
contemporarily,
delivered
to
the
board
of
adjustment
offices
via
fedex.
Thank
you
for
your
attention.
Jeffrey
shannon
manager
of
wake
forest,
real
estate
holdings,
llc,
jeffrey,
shannon,
pa
2025,
east
south
east
7th
ave,
tampa
florida,
33605,
eight
one:
three:
nine,
zero,
six,
six,
four:
five:
zero
extension,
two
j,
shannon
at
jcs
or
jc,
shannon
pa.com.
A
Just
just
two
quick
points:
one
is
that
wake
forest
when
it
bought
its
property,
was
faced
with
similar
issues
in
terms
of
waterfront
and
just
as
every
lot
owner
along
the
bayou
has
been
faced
with
those
issues
and
has
to
address
those
issues
in
conformance
with
the
with
the
code
and
and
with
the
boundaries
of
the
property
that
is
purchased.
So
I
would
just
offer
that
up
is
is
that
the
the
applicants
have
have
purchased
a
piece
of
property.
A
They
were
aware
of
the
boundaries
of
their
property
and
the
constraint
on
the
construction
of
a
dock
as
a
result
and
must
live
without
as
everyone
else
on
the
bus.
And
the
second
thing
is
that
the
this
board
will
determine
the
position,
length
and
and
width
of
the
dock,
and
it
appears
from
the
drawings
that
the
width
and
length,
because
of
the
width
and
length,
far
exceed
the
setbacks
that
are
provided,
given
the
dimensions
and
boundaries
of
the
cushman's
lot,
and
that
is
where
the
the
problem
really
lies
for
the
southern
property
owner.
A
E
You
thank
you,
sir.
Hang
on
a
moment.
Does
the
board
have
any
questions
for
mr
shannon?
At
this
point
question?
Yes,
mr
eisner.
A
That
I
I
was
more
concerned
and,
as
you
know,
and
let
me
explain
too,
as
a
as
an
affected
property
owner
the
reasons
for
why
or
why
the
property
owner
doesn't
object
or
doesn't
object
really
are
irrelevant.
The
the
purpose
of
this
exercise
is
to
determine
whether
the
property
owner
that
is
affected,
objects
or
doesn't
object,
but
I
went
a
little
further
just
to
explain
that
we
believe
it
again.
You
can't
visualize
without
the
doc
there,
but
they're
working
back
to
the
sight
lines
from
from
our
property.
F
Well,
I'm
not
looking
to
provide
evidence
because
that's
not
my
job
to
do,
but
with
all
of
the
information
that
was
provided
to
me,
I
usually
go
to
the
site
to
see
if
that
is
true
and
when
I
was
there
today,
I
kind
of
couldn't
understand
where
that
comment
was
justified
and
saying,
because
you
can't
actually
see
it
whether
the
doc
is
there
or
not.
F
That
property
is
nowhere
near
the
dock.
So
that's
why
I'm
needing
you
to
clarify
if
something
is
impacting,
as
you
said
here
almost
directly
in
front
of,
you
have
to
be
60
70,
maybe
80
feet
away
from.
If
I
was
to
stand
by
the
property
that
you're
presenting,
I
probably
couldn't
even
see
the
dock,
the
doc
would
be
the
only
thing
blocking
is
another
house
not
to
spring
by
you
at
all.
So
I
don't
understand
where
you
have
that.
A
And
again,
without
the
doc
there
without
the
visual
or
the
optic,
it's
impossible
to
know
for
sure,
and
so
I
was
making
a
statement
just
to
say
that
in
support
of
the
non-objection,
but
again
the
point
is,
I
could
have
just
written
an
email
that
just
says
the
the
affected
property
owner
objects
and
that
would
have
been.
Yes,
I'm
trying
to
point
out
that
there
might
be
an
issue
with
the
sight
line,
that's
to
be
determined.
F
A
Because
of
the
fact
that
that
it,
it
will
extend
beyond
the
setbacks
that
are
provided
for
the
dock,
which
means
it
further
impacts.
What
wake
forest
is
ultimately
able
to
do
with
its
waterfront,
because
those
those
setbacks
are
are
in
place
for
a
reason
and
that's
what
the
code
enforces
and
that's
what
your
board
enforces,
and
so
that's
to
protect
property
owners
right
and
because
of
the
fact
those
setbacks
would
be
affected
by
this
decision.
F
That
may
be
true.
The
only
problem
that
I
look
at
is
many
docks
in
tarpon
springs
over
the
years
have
have
had
to
be
extended
out
for
silt,
and
you
know
depth
of
water.
So
there
is
extenuating
circumstances
that
come
about
that.
You
can't
there's
nothing.
F
You
can
do
just
off
the
beaten
path
for
a
second
we've
had
situations
where
somebody
has
to
move
out
to
a
point
where,
when
it's,
when
it's
coming
out
to
two
points,
they
would
almost
be
off
their
property
line
if
they
had
to
go
out
far
enough
to
be
able
to
to
make
a
dock
that
a
boat
could
pull
up
to.
So,
regardless
of
what
our
rules
and
regulations
are
in
our
guidelines,
that's
why
we
make
decisions
on
water
more
so
than
we
do
on
on
on
appearance.
F
J
Thank
you
and
thank
you,
mr
shannon,
for
joining
us
tonight.
J
I
do
have
a
few
questions
in
regards
to
your
verbal
presentation
this
evening
and
the
historical
emails
that
was
provided
to
the
city,
so
you
had
referenced
that
wake
forest
in
your
verbal
had
said
that
they
had
some
issues
with
their
own
doc
construction
and
everything
when
they
had
purchased
their
property,
so
they're
referencing
their
doc
experience.
J
J
So
in
fact
the
email
on
may
13th
between
yourself
as
representing
wake
forest
and
the
applicants
saying
that
they
they
may
want
to
offer
them
money
for
the
damage
it
may
help,
move
our
variants
or
crest
along.
J
So
it
seems
this
tree
situation
seems
to
be
more
of
a
concern,
maybe
than
a
view
or
issues
they
may
have
had
with
their
own
doc.
And
the
second
point
I
wanted
to
address
was
in
the
email
that
mr
others
had
read
for
the
record,
which
was
submitted
on
friday
afternoon
friday.
What
is
that?
The
august
26
saying
that
there
was
an
issue
with
the
check
boxes
of
object
and
do
not
object.
J
However,
it
seems
from
the
historical
records
of
the
conversations
that
the
applicants
first
attempted
to
reach
the
wake
forest
on
february
23rd
and
the
applicants
had
were
successful
in
making
sure
they
had
this
form
the
variance
request
form
on
march
13th.
So
I'm
just
questioning
why
it
took
from
march
13th
to
august
26
for
them
to
bring
up
the
issue
with
the
check
box
on
this
form.
A
Let
me
take
your
first
question
first,
as
I
indicated
previously,
and
as
I
think,
your
legal
counsel
would
would
advise
the
the
fact
that
an
affected
property
owner
has
other
issues
or
has
no
issues
with
a
a
neighboring
or
contiguous
property
owner
is,
is
really
immaterial.
A
The
fact
that
that
those
issues
were
presented
to
the
cushmans
as
hey
can
we
resolve
these
at
the
same
time
is,
is
is
really
irrelevant
to
these
meetings,
because
again
the
property
owner
can
object
for
any
reason
and
then,
secondly,
boxes
the
there
is
a.
A
There
was
not
really
an
opportunity
to
to
discuss
the
boxes
before
then
there
was
a
request
for
a
do
not
object
submitted,
and
so,
when
the
opportunity
came
on
in
anticipation
of
the
hearing
to
submit
some
written
combination
of
wake
forest
position,
that's
when
that
opportunity
arose
and
was
was
taken
advantage
of
in
terms
of
the
statement
that
was
made.
So
it's
simple
is
that
a
lot's
happened
in
the
last
four
or
five
months.
A
J
I
realize
that
you
know
we
do
have
covered
we've
all
been
working
through
that
you
know
the
five
months
to
address
it,
dustin
and
excessive,
when
somewhere
in
the
middle
of
that,
the
remark
of
we
could
maybe
settle
this
by
you
know
taking
care
of
the
tree
situation
for
a
few
thousand
dollars
that
there
was
the
ability
to
do
that.
So
I
was
just
a
bit
perplexed.
D
D
The
same
issue
comes
up
as
far
as
the
the
money
and
whether
to
pay
the
damages
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
you
have
a
house
on
north
bayou
and
you
have
such
a
small
place
in
the
front
of
it.
To
put
it
back
very
shallow,
the
the
length
of
this
deck
is
going
to
be
28
feet,
the
width.
I
assume
it's
going
to
be
about
28
to
30..
We
don't
have
the
information
on
the
enclosed
area.
L
Thank
you
just
a
question
that
was
spurned
during
michael
eisner's,
questioning
on
the
comment
about
you
know.
Once
it
comes
through
us,
it
then
goes
to
the
county
and
he
was
talking
about
some
of
the
longer
docs
that
are
needed
in
the
area.
If
the
motion
to
have
a
variant
was
denied
tonight,.
E
They
would
only
get
that
joanne,
my
understanding,
but
please
patricia,
or
the
attorney
can
chime
in,
but
they
can
only
get
that
if
both
neighbors
signed
off,
which
they
are
not
so
if
we
deny
it.
L
L
I
So
if,
if
the
length,
if
the,
if
the
the
dock
was
proposed
and
turned
into
four
building
permit
compliant
with
our
code,
went
to
the
county,
the
county
said
no,
it's
got
to
be
longer,
it
no
longer
complies
with
our
code,
it
would
have
to
come
back
to
you
and
that
would
be
a
physical
hardship
that
predictors
and
staff
would
would
present
and
evaluate
for
your
consideration.
F
This
is
a
question
on
may
1st,
there's
an
email
in
front
of
me
that
says
we
received
the
voicemail
from
mr
shannon
describing
a
situation
with
the
owner
of
the
property
at
170
and
a
half
north
spring
boulevard.
Having
an
issue
with
the
prior
owners
of
our
home.
He
stated
there
was
a
storm
that
blown
had
blown
down
a
tree
that
was
on
our
property
and
landed
on
the
neighbor's
property,
damaging
a
section
of
the
fence
between
the
two
yards.
This
took
place
before
we
purchased
our
home.
F
A
F
A
I'm
sorry,
mr
eisner,
can
you
repeat
the
question
was
the
response.
F
Well,
it's
it
states
here
on
may
first
that
you
had
stated
to
the
owners
of
the
property
that
you
that
you
represent,
that
they
paid
for
the
tree
removal
and
the
fence
repairs,
but
had
not
collected
any
money
from
the
previous
owners
of
the
home.
Is
that
something
that
you
made
that
you
presented
to
the
new
homeowners.
A
What
I
probably
said
is
that
we
have
a
lingering
issue
that
should
be
addressed
and
that
the
that
there,
that
there
is
an
objection
to
the
doc,
but
it
would
certainly
help
in
terms
of
consideration
of
that
objection.
If
this
lingering
issue
from
the
closing
of
whenever
they
acquire
property,
was
resolved.
F
A
It
was
all
in
the
context
that
I
that
I
just
spoke
of
if
there
were
there,
was
this
past
issue
weren't
aware
what
the
cushmans
knew
about
it
from
their
closing
really
unrelated
to
the
objection,
but
there
clearly
was
going
to
be
an
objection
to
the
doc,
but
I
it
would
certainly,
as
as
you
know,
people
do
when
they're
dealing
with
one
another.
If
they
resolve
one
issue,
then
maybe
it
helps
resolve
another.
It
was.
It
was
something
that
was.
It
was
under
discussion
at
the
time.
E
C
I
do
thank
you.
This
is
cara,
mr
shannon.
You
said
last
night.
Actually,
when
you
called
us,
it
was
on
speakerphone
with
my
husband
and
I
that
again
you
just
wanted
to
be
the
intermediary
in
your
words
and
that
you
were
just
acting
on
behalf
of
your
client
that
we
could
get
this
process
moving
right
along
if
we
could
just
come
up
with
some
kind
of
payment
and
then
the
variance
would
be
granted.
But
earlier
you
said
that
statement
that
you
made
was
irrelevant.
C
A
A
Clarify
that's
why
it
was.
I
thought
it
was
irrelevant
because
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
these
proceedings,
but
it
was
a
lingering
issue
for
the
adjacent
property
owner
and
I
thought
hey.
If
we
can
resolve
that.
Maybe
we
can
make
some
promise
progress
on
the
objection
or
talk
about
what
the
objections
truly
mean
and
what
this,
what
the
proceedings
today
would
decide.
C
A
C
We
could
just
make
this
go
away
and
they
would
sign
off
if
we
just
paid
something,
but
we
weren't
aware
that
a
tree
had
gone
down
or
there
was
any
damage,
as
it
had
been
years
prior
to
us,
purchasing
this
home.
So
you're
right,
it
is
irrelevant,
but
the
fact
that
they're
still
sore
about
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
their
sight
line
or
their
property
and.
H
H
D
Is
that
what
you're
trying
to
do
here
with
this
three
to
five
thousand
dollar
deal
with
the
three?
In
other
words,
you
started
back
in
march.
You
continue
in
may
and
then,
at
the
end
of
august
day,
the
night
before
you're
still
asking
for
the
three
to
five
thousand
dollar
bill.
It
doesn't
make
sense.
E
A
Yeah,
that's
fine,
yes,
and
my
comment
would
be
again
that
it
it's
an
unrelated
map.
I
just
thought
if
it
could
get
resolved,
it
might
help
in
the
dealings
with
objection,
because
the
the
objection
was
was
so
adamant
on
behalf
of
wake
fore
that
I
felt
like
I
thought.
Maybe
part
of
the
reason
for
that
was
this
lingering
issue
from
a
year
ago
that
should
have
been
brought
up
at
the
at
the
cushman's
closing
and
apparently
wasn't
so
that's
that's
why
it
was
not
a
direct
tie.
A
It
was
to
resolve
that
issue
so
that
this
you
know,
objection
could
be
removed
potentially
or
at
least
negotiated
in
so
and
again,
the
objection
doesn't
require
any
any
explanation.
It's
just
an
objection
to
the
to
the
variance
or
to
the
new
doc.
So.
E
E
Thank
you
very
much,
so
we're
gonna
move
on
to
the
next
public
comment.
Do
we
have
another
affected
party,
or
is
this
general
public.
E
Okay,
so
I
guess
at
this
point
we're
moving
for
your
closing
statements.
H
H
C
I
believe
that
we've
presented
everything
in
my
videos
and
pictures
and
measuring
of
the
distance
and
the
length
of
time
that
we've
been
requiring
a
signature.
So
I
think
we've
presented
everything
as
best.
We
can
well.
K
What
there's
one
thing
I'd
like
to
add
on
the
14th
of
may.
I
gave
mr
shannon
the
prior
owners
phone
number
from
what
I
had
from
our
closing
documents.
I
gave
him
the
real
estate
agent's
information.
I
gave
him
the
title
agent's
information
in
hopes
that
they
could
reach
out
to
them
and
deal
with
that
whole
situation.
K
I
never
heard
what
they
did
with
it,
but
I
gave
a
pretty.
I
gave
all
that
information
to
him
on
may
14th,
so.
C
And
I
do
want
to
just
add
that
mr
shannon
said
that
you
know
we
should
have
known
this
at
closing.
That
was
not
presented
at
closing,
so,
but
that
again
wouldn't
have
anything
to
do
with
us.
That
would
have
had
to
do
with
the
sellers
of
the.
C
D
C
Yes,
we
have,
it
was
submitted,
the
email
that
did.
C
Email
that
I
believe
that
was
back
in
may
here
was
that.
K
E
Mr
burst,
we
got
an
addendum
today.
Perhaps
you
didn't
see
it.
It
was
an
additional
packet
of
emails,
additional
backup,
material.
E
C
All
right,
certainly
as
the
as
the
chart
lays
out,
and
it's
demonstrated
it's
a
unusual
shape
and
form,
and
due
to
the
tide,
I
measured
yesterday
with
a
yardstick
if
you
will
or
whatever,
but
we
also
have
the
title
charts
in
there
and
based
on
the
doc
builders
and
the
shape
of
the
lot.
C
That
was
what
the
recommendation
is
also
the
fact
that
we
are
not
encroaching
on
other
people's
properties,
it's
just
outside
of
that
middle.
That
is
basically
what
they're
saying
please.
I
don't
know
if
I.
K
Explain
it
well,
no,
in
the
middle,
the
middle
third
of
our
property
is
and
because
of
the
shape
of
it,
the
pie,
shape.
It
becomes
so
thin
down
there
that
without
some
variants,
we
we
can't
fit
a
boat
and
out
there
so
that
we
can
enjoy
the
water,
so
it
just
kind
of
naturally
become
what
it
is
right
here.
Right
now,.
E
Understood
so
patricia.
I
E
Having
just
heard
what
they
said,
how
could
they
possibly
put
something
within
the
footprint
that
you
were
suggesting.
I
E
I
Yesterday,
I
would
like
to
confirm
that
the
board
also
received
an
email
that
I
sent
this
afternoon
that
the
coachman
supplied.
It
is
an
email
from
the
doc
builder.
Now,
to
my
knowledge,
he
or
she
is
not
here
to
testify
directly,
but
I
wanted
to
continue
that
the
board
that
emailed
and
if
you
didn't
we're
available
to
read
that
if
you
yes.
J
No
no,
but
I
did
have
a
question
regarding
that:
email
from
miss
mcneese
in
reference
to
that
email
and
your
synopsis
of
the
application
which,
by
the
way,
thank
you.
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
great
format
for
us
in
this
virtual
world,
on
the
powerpoint
that
you
put
together
the
blue.
J
So
thank
you
so,
given
this
new
information
that
you
were
provided
by
the
doc
builders
and
tell
me
if
you,
if
you're
not
at
liberty
to
answer
this,
would
number
three
would
would
that
impact
or
change
the
staff
recommendation.
I
Yeah
again
staff,
because
there
is
no
city
standard
for
depth,
technically
speaking,
staff
would
have
to
rely
on
the
county's
evaluation
of
of
the
of
the
proposal
and
whether
it
meets
the
depth
code.
Okay,
we
would
not
be
able
to
make
a
decision
and
create
a
variance
basically
at
staff
level
based
on
on
depth
information
supplied.
I
J
Know
just
by
by
a
non-county
entity,
so
that
brings
back
what
miss
rich
was
saying
earlier,
say
if
we
were
to
deny
the
variance
today,
but
the
applicants
could
then
present
this
information
to
the
county
with
the
proper
depth
analysis
and
so
on.
If
they
said
no,
this
needs
to
go
here.
Then.
What's
the
next
step
for
the
applicant,
I
will.
I
I
I'm
not
sure
of
that,
but
this
evidence
that
was
presented
that
the
applicant
has
submitted
is
telling
them
that
you're.
You
know
the
is
saying
that
that
the
boat
may
be
damaged
because
it
will
be
sitting
on
the
bottom.
I
I
don't
know
that
the
county
uses
that
as
a
sole
criteria,
so
it
depends
on
the
conditions
at
the
dock,
the
bottom,
the
sea
law.
You
know
whatever
the
criteria
they
use,
but
they're.
I
No,
the
coachman's.
What
could
then
come
back
to
you
and
that
would
be
an
additional
hardship
that
they
would
present,
but
the
board
would
have
to
grant
the
variance
assuming
that
okay.
D
E
F
Is
just
a
I'm
a
knowledgeable
boater?
You
cannot
launch
a
boat
in
dead,
low
tide
that
close
to
the
dock.
It
has
to
be
out
from
the
bulkhead
a
certain
distance.
That's
why
all
of
them
are
like
that
around
the
spring
bayou,
it's
not
so
much
anything
other
than
that.
That's
exactly
the
whole
reason
why
they
have
to
be
somewhat
of
a
ways
out.
F
F
D
E
E
L
D
D
E
E
I
Okay,
I
can
start
with
mr
steve
davis
he's
our
first
alternate
new
first
alternate
and-
and
I
will
say
that
mr
bolton
did
submit
his
resignation
and
was
said
to
serve
for
a
short
time
on
the
board
and
appreciated
everything,
but
he
could
no
longer
serve
so.
Mr
steve
davis
is
our
first
alternate.
E
G
G
M
Hello,
I've
lived
in
tarpon
since
about
1998..
My
husband
and
I
are
very
familiar
with
planning
and
zoning
because
we
just
finished
building
our
house
last
year.
G
M
It's
definitely
an
interesting
experience.
M
E
Fantastic
well
welcome
aboard.
Thank
you
for
helping
out.
I
know
mr
eisner's
bursting
at
the
seams.
So
what
do
you
got?
Man.
J
D
F
So
let
me
let
me
go
into.
I
read
all
of
the
documentation
that
was
in
here
and
honestly.
I
found
it
very
hard
to
believe
that.
First
of
all,
I
know
this
is
outside
our
realm,
but
a
tree,
that's
growing.
On
top
of
somebody
else's
property,
whatever
is
growing
in
the
airspace,
is
their
business
to
deal
with,
not
anybody
else's.
If
the
tree
falls
on
someone's
property,
it's
also
theirs
to
remove.
It
is
not
where
the
roots
are
it's
where
the
tree
falls.
So
everything
that's
on
their
property
is
theirs
to
deal
with.
F
F
So
I
mean
they're
very
limited
to
where
they
could
put
it,
so
I'm
glad
that
we
as
a
board
approved
and
gave
them
the
ability
to
enjoy
tarpon
springs
like
like
the
rest
of
us,
enjoy
talking
spring
so
welcome
to
our
new
members
and
welcome
to
your
new
doc
to
be
built
as
long
as
the
county
approves
and
I'm
done
spilling
over
my
my
joy
for
the
day.
J
Surprisingly,
no
just
welcome
to
mr
davis
and
miss
simpson
and
wonderful
that
miss
rich
is
now
permanent
official.
So
I
think
we've
got
a
great
group.