►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment Meeting April 29th 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
The
testimony
you're
about
to
give
us
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
I
do
okay,
so
sworn
and
and
also
we
had
previously
discussed
that
there
will
be
a
time
limit
placed
on
the
presentations
of
staff
and
the
applicant
and
members
that
are
affected
members
or
affected
parties,
that
a
time
limit
in
discussions
seems
to
be
10
minutes.
So
you
will
have
10
minutes
to
make
your
initial
presentation.
A
B
B
B
B
B
C
The
applicant
has
indicated
that
the
swimming
pool
and
pool
and
the
pool
enclosure
cannot
be
located
any
closer
to
the
existing
residence
because
of
the
location
of
an
underground
power
line
and
the
property
the
application
package,
and
you
should
have
a
copy
of
the
survey
and
site
plan
in
your
packet
that
illustrates
what
they're,
what
they're,
showing
what
they're
requesting.
Rather
the
section
of
the
code
is
section
36
point
O
2,
which
states
that
pools
and
pools
screen
and
closers
shall
abide
by
the
following
minimum
setbacks,
and
the
report
includes
a
table
of
setbacks.
C
C
The.
If
you
refer
to
the
survey,
that's
in
the
packet
there's.
This
is
a
corner
lot
and,
according
to
the
information
submitted
by
the
applicant
there's,
an
underground
electrical
line
on
the
east
side
of
the
house
that
prevents
the
pool
from
being
located
closer
to
the
home
and
the
pool
location
in
turn
affects
the
location
of
the
requested
pool
screen.
Enclosure
I
will
go
through
the
standards
of
review
for
variances
of
section
2015
point
O
to
be
the
first
criteria
deals
with
unique
conditions.
C
Our
finding
is
the
need
for
the
variances
due
to
the
location
of
an
underground
power
line
on
the
property.
This
condition
does
not
apply
generally
to
other
properties
located
in
the
zoning
district.
The
second
criteria
is
that
this
condition
was
not
self
created.
The
location
of
the
underground
power
line
was
unknown
by
the
applicant
until
construction
of
the
pool.
The
third
criteria
is
a
literal.
C
Enforcement
of
the
code
would
deny
the
applicant
reasonable
use
of
the
property
or
other
structures,
and
the
requested
variance
is
a
minimum
variance
necessary
a
literal
enforcement
of
the
minimum
pool
screen
enclosure
side
side
lot.
Setback
would
not
allow
construction
of
the
pool
screen
enclosure
because
of
minimum
minimum
setback.
Requirements
between
the
water's
edge
of
the
pool
and
the
proposed
enclosure,
the
requested
variance,
is
the
minimum
necessary
to
permit
construction
of
the
pool
enclosure.
The
fourth
criteria
is
granting
that
of
the
variance
will
not
confer
any
special
privilege
that
is
not
allowed
or
other
lands.
C
Building
the
source
structures
in
the
same
zoning
district
or
finding
is
a
granting
of
the
variance
will
allow
the
construction
of
a
full
screen
enclosure,
which
is
a
feature
common
with
other
properties
in
this
area.
And
finally,
the
granting
of
the
variance
will
not
substantially
diminish
property
values
in
the
surrounding
area.
Our
finding
is
that
the
granting
of
the
variance
for
the
minimum
pool
screen
enclosure
side,
Lots
setback
would
not
be
expected
to
significantly
affect
property
values
in
the
surrounding
areas.
This
is
a
corner
lot.
There
are
no
adjacent
properties.
C
D
This
is
Jackie,
I
had
a
question
so
well.
Does
this
affect
any
sort
of
setback,
requirements
for
a
fence?
D
C
D
C
Of
that,
yes,
thank
you.
E
E
C
F
What's
happened
is
that
the
pool
is
is
constructed
they
when
they
went
to
permit
the
pool.
That's
when
the
electrical
line
placement
was
discovered
and
because
of
whatever
Building
Code
electric
code,
they
had
to
adjust
the
pool
and
the
applicant
may
be
able
to
expand
on
this.
They
had
to
adjust
the
pool
location
to
meet
code,
so
this
was
something
that
they
had
to
do
because
of
an
electric
line.
Them
was
apparently
there
before
they
bought
the
house
and
they
did
not
know
the
the
layout
of
the
under
our
minds.
So.
E
C
Well,
the
can
be
constructed
where
it
was
permitted.
It's
the
it's.
The
screen,
enclosure
that
that
requires
the
variance
and
I
think
they
I'm
not
sure
if
it
was
contemplated
when
they
permitted
the
pool-
and
perhaps
the
applicant
can
answer
that,
but
at
any
rate
they
they
can
proceed
with
the
pool
construction.
Just
not
the
screen
enclosure
without
the
variance
well.
A
I
Okay,
we
went
to
build
the
pool
and
we
had
a
little
problem
with
the
Duke
Energy.
They
said
the
power
was
there,
the
locate
of
the
line
I
had
911
sunshine
located,
come
out
several
different
times
to
mark
the
power
lines.
Once
we
started
the
pool,
we
found
the
power
lines
weren't
exactly
where
they
said
they
were
a
little
closer
to
where
the
pool
is
going
to
go.
The
pool
by
Electric
Code
has
to
be
at
least
five
feet
away
from
an
underground
power
line,
so
we
had
to
shift
the
pool
closer
to
the
street.
I
On
the
one
side,
then
mm-hmm
that
put
the
screen
enclosure
a
little
bit
closer
to
the
street.
The
pool
is
finished.
The
homeowners
have
a
six
foot,
PVC
fence,
which
was
permitted
by
the
city
around
their
property
closer
to
the
road,
so
the
pool
screen
enclosure
obviously
would
be
inside
the
screen.
Enclosure
people
wouldn't
see
it.
It's
unobtrusive,
the
homeowners
actually
really.
I
C
I
We
originally
weren't
going
to
have
a
screen,
but
then
because
of
some
of
the
mosquitoes
that
came
out,
it
was
necessary
for
the
homeowners
to
have
a
screen
enclosure
on
the
pool.
So
we
went
to
get
the
permit
for
the
screen
enclosure
we
were
denied
because
we
were,
you
know,
2
feet,
2
inches.
You
know
too
close
to
the
street.
So
to
get
a
final
on
the
pool.
Final
inspection,
which
we
have.
We
put
this
six-foot
privacy
fence
around
the
pool,
I.
E
I
No
Duke
can't
really
say
it's
too
close,
but
when
we
found
the
power
line
we
knew
we
had
to
be
5
feet
away.
We
have
to.
When
we
build
a
pool,
we
have
to
get
a
no
conflict
letter
from
the
power
company.
They
gave
us
a
no
conflict
letter
and
it
wasn't
exactly
correct.
Once
we
dug
the
pool
we
found,
the
power
line
was
a
little
bit
closer
to
the
where
the
pool
was
going
to
originally
be
so
we
had
to
shift
the
pool
away
from
the
power
line.
E
Document
that
they
that
they
said
that
the
wire
was
too
close
to
the
pool
or
that
III
it's
not
up
to
me,
to
bring
evidence
to
the
board.
It's
it's
you
to
bring
evidence
to.
Let
us
know
that
you
were
kind
of
stuck
and
there
was
nothing
else
you
can
do
to
tell
us
that
is
good.
We
I
mean
I
like
hearing
you
saying
that,
but
is
there
any
evidence
that
you've
had
any
interaction
with
Duke
Energy
and
that
you
had
tuned
out
this
pool
in
this
area?
I.
D
So
then,
sir,
that
no
conflict,
the
original
no
conflict
was
did
that
denote
where
the
location
of
the
power
line
was
upon
their
initial
investigation
of
it
and
then
upon.
Then
you
start
digging
and
realized.
No,
we
thought
it
was
here
on
that
no
conflict,
but
it
actually
ended
up
being
here.
That's.
I
G
And
when
you
had
to
move
the
pool,
whether
it
was
a
foot,
a
foot
and
a
half
whatever
it
was
to
make
the
five
feet
away
from
the
line,
did
you
have
to
apply
again
for
a
permit
or
anything
different
that
you
had
originally
to
build
the
pool?
And
now
that's
automatically
don't
you
do
you
need
anything
from
the
city
for
moving
it
X
feet
or
whatever?
It
was
now.
I
D
E
Well,
I
still
would
like
to
have
had
some
sort
of
documentation
or
a
schematic
to
show
where
you
thought
the
wire
was
and
where
the
wire
or
electric
lines
where,
where
it
eventually
you
found
it,
and
why
you
had
to
move
it
I'm
looking
at
a
schematic
that
shows
me
where
you
finally
put
it,
but
I
have
no
evidence
in
front
of
me.
That
shows
me
that
you
had
to
move
it
because
of
measurements.
B
H
B
B
J
A
K
A
Echoing
a
little
bit
but
I
did
want
to
first
inquire
as
to
your
affected
party
status.
You
are
claiming
that
you
are
an
affected
party
to
this
application.
Is
that
correct?
Okay,.
L
A
A
C
A
M
A
B
A
A
H
B
M
B
B
I
I
am
my
only
final
comment
is
that
the
screen
enclosure
is
going
to
protect
and
allow
my
customers
by
the
homeowners
to
enjoy
their
pool
to
safely
and
it
there
is
a
six-foot
PVC
privacy
fence
around
the
pool,
so
nobody
can
see
the
screen
just
about
just
the
very
top
of
it.
It's
not
hurting
anything,
and
these
are
really
nice
people
and
good
good
citizens
of
the
community
and
I
appreciate
your
consideration
in
this
and
I
hope
everything
works
out
well.
Thank
you.
Thank.
B
D
I
have
a
question
for
the
city.
As
mr.
Annette
wall
had
said,
they
had
called
to
have
all
the
different
power
lines
and
everything
marked
and
then
upon.
You
know,
construction
realize
that
the
power
line
in
question
was
not
in
the
location
in
which
they
were
anticipated
now
and
then
they
proceeded
with
moving
the
pool
location
to
accommodate
the
5-foot
separation.
Is
that
a
standard
customary
thing
for
someone
to
move
that
and
not
required
to
come
back
to
the
city
for
any
permitting
adjustment
or
inspection?
D
C
Understanding
is
that
the
line
was
discovered
during
the
design
phase
of
it,
so
it
hadn't
gone
to
the
city
yet
so
yeah.
Typically,
if
the
plan
was
submitted
and
then
the
line
was
discovered
that
the
plan
would
have
to
be
changed
but
I
don't
think
that
was
the
case.
I
didn't
get
that
from
from
the
conversations
and
my
understanding
of
this
so
I
think
it
was
just
they
had
the
design.
He
was
designing
it
with
this
contractor
and
they
had
laid
it
out
and
then
they
discovered
the
location
and
then
then
the
plans
were
changed.
G
G
A
I
Originally,
there
wasn't
going
to
be
a
screen,
then,
because
of
the
situation
there,
we
decided
the
homeowners
decided
they
wanted
to
have
the
screen.
They
were
concerned
about
the
the
bugs,
basically
the
bugs,
because
you
know,
there's
zika
mosquitoes
and
everything
else.
You
know
and,
as
we
know
right
now
today,
this
is
something
that
it's
all
about
personal
safety
and
and
allowing
to
them
to
enjoy
the
pool
that
they
have
the
property
that
they
have
so.
B
I
B
E
B
C
Yes,
this
is
for
to
reduce
the
minimum
rear
yard
setback
from
25
feet
to
12
feet
for
the
construction
of
a
3282
square
foot,
building
to
accommodate
the
expansion
of
an
electrical
substation
on
the
site.
The
applicant
has
indicated
that
an
existing
building
on
the
site
is
being
demolished
and
replaced
with
the
proposed
control
building
at
a
different
location
on
the
site
to
accommodate
the
needed
expansion
of
the
substation.
The
property
is
located
on
the
east
side
of
us
19
approximately
300
feet
north
of
tarpon
Avenue.
C
The
property
does
sit
between
Cemetery
Road
on
the
east
and
us
19
on
the
west,
so
the
front
is
actually
Cemetery
Road.
The
rear
yard
is
on
19,
so
the
rear
yard.
The
variance
request
is
for
the
u.s.
19
frontage,
which
is
the
rear
yard,
going
through
the
criteria.
The
first
criteria
for
granting
a
variance
the
first
is
unique
condition.
The
unique
condition
in
this
case
is
that
the
proposed
building
is
needed
to
allow
expansion
of
a
substation
to
accommodate
electrical
demand.
C
The
best
the
variance
is
necessary
to
meet
separation
requirements
of
the
National
electric
safety
code
and
to
allow
the
building
to
be
located
within
the
existing
perimeter
fence
and
to
maintain
safe
employee
access
to
the
proposed
controlled
building.
These
conditions
do
not
apply
generally
to
other
properties
located
in
the
zoning
district.
The
second
condition
is
the
unique
condition
is
not
self
created.
The
analysis
of
this
is
that
the
condition
described
is
the
conditions
that
we
discussed
are
not
self
created
and
they're,
not
the
result
of
action
by
the
applicant.
C
The
third
criteria
is
that
littoral
enforcement
would
deny
the
applicant
reasonable
use
of
the
property
or
of
legally
conforming
buildings.
Our
finding
is
that
the
littoral
enforcement
of
the
minimum
rear
yard
setback
would
not
allow
the
expansion
of
a
major
electrical
substation
that
is
needed
to
accommodate
an
electrical
demand.
The
requested
variance
is
a
minimum
necessary
to
permit
construction
of
the
proposed
control.
Building.
Fourth
criteria
is
a
granting
of
the
variance
will
not
confer
any
special
privilege
that
is
not
allowed
for
in
other
lands.
Buildings
are
structured
in
the
same
zoning
district.
C
Our
finding
is
a
granting
of
the
variance
request
will
allow
the
construction
of
a
building
that
is
required
to
accommodate
the
needed
expansion
of
major
of
a
major
electrical
substation.
The
variance
will
not
confer
any
special
privilege
that
is
not
allowed
for
other
lands,
buildings
or
structures
in
the
same
zoning.
District
and
final
final
criteria
is
a
granting
of
the
variance
will
not
substantially
diminish
property
rights,
our
property
values
in
the
surrounding
area
or
substantially
interfere
with
or
injure
the
rights
of
other
properties.
C
Our
finding
is
that
the
rear
of
the
subject
property
faces
us
19
in
an
area
that's
already
developed
within
turn,
intense
commercial
uses.
As
you
probably
know,
the
site
is
a
very
large
substation
that
includes
a
major
communications
tower
on
the
property,
so
the
granting
of
the
variance
is
not
expected
to
have
significant
impacts
to
surrounding
properties.
The
very
the
variance
for
the
minimum,
rear
yard
setback
is
is
not
affected
to
affect
is
not
expected
to
affect
properties
based
on
our
findings.
In
this
report,
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
variance.
F
G
D
C
Request
is
clarified
by
the
applicant
after
the
initial
application
is
for
12
feet
so
that
the
requested
variance
is
for
12
feet,
25
feet
to
12
feet
and
I.
Think
it's
based
on
just
you
know,
additional
information
that
was
uncovered
during
look
at
the
planning
phase
of
this.
The
design
of
it
and
the
applicant
could
probably
answer
that,
but
yeah
the
request
is
for
12
feet.
Thank.
C
C
C
Is
not
well
our
finding
in
regard
to
that
is
yes,
the
expansion
is,
is
required
to
to
use
that
that
substation,
it's
needed
to
address
additional
demand,
but
the
requirements
for
safe
employee
access
and
meeting
the
enough
National
Electrical,
Safety
Code
and
the
requirements
for
security
fence.
Those
are
all
conditions
that
were
not
created
by
the
applicants.
That's
the
basis
of
our
funding.
A
L
L
The
expansion
of
this
state
substation
is
necessary
to
both
respond
to
the
growing
demand
for
electrical
service
in
the
tarpon
springs
area,
and
also
to
provide
increased
reliability
in
the
provision
of
service
to
Duke
Energy's
existing
customers.
The
exhibit
that
you
see
on
your
screen
is
a
simplified
version
of
the
substation
expansion
plan
and
it
specifically
calls
out
the
location
of
the
control
equipment,
enclosure
or
the
Cee
Building
located
in
the
southeast
corner
of
the
drawing
it's
the
the
square
or
the
rectangle.
L
That's
in
yellow,
perfect
and
again,
our
request
is
to
allow
for
a
12-foot
setback
from
the
u.s.
19
right-of-way
for
this
building.
The
reduced
setback
is
necessary
to
accommodate
minimum
separation
requirements
of
the
National
Electrical
Safety
Code
for
substation
components,
and
also
to
maintain
safe
employee
access
to
this
control
building.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
Cee
building
will
be
constructed
flush
with
the
perimeter
security
fence
of
the
facility
and
will
connect
to
the
fence.
In
other
words,
no
portion
of
the
expanded
substation,
including
this
building,
will
extend
beyond
the
fence
line.
L
That
is
on
the
property
today,
so
there
will
be
no
encroachment
past
the
fence
line
that
you
see
on
the
property
today,
we
thank
you
for
your
consideration
of
my
request.
We
also
have
subject
matter
experts
that
are
on
this
call
who
will
be
able
to
answer
any
questions
that
I'm
not
able
to
answer.
Thank
you.
K
I
do
have
a
question
just
I'm
not
familiar
with
substations
in
general,
but
you
mentioned
the
safety
regulations.
How
often
are
those
regulations
updated
and
I'm
asking
that?
Because
if
like
right
now,
it's
meeting
the
maximum
separation,
if
those
regulations
changed
to
require
a
broader
regulation,
is
that
component
of
a
substation
sometimes
move
to
meet
that
requirement?
If
the
regulations
change
that.
L
Is
an
existing
access
on
us
19
that,
as
is
shown
on
the
plan,
there's
a
d-cell
lane
deceleration
lane?
That
is
quite
lengthy,
that
has
already
provided
on
to
the
site
today,
however,
the
the
in
the
future,
once
the
expansion
is
complete,
we
expect
that
the
majority
of
traffic
will
enter
from
Cemetery
Road
and
when
I
say
the
majority
of
traffic
we're
talking
about
probably
two
to
three
trips
per
month.
This
is
not
a
manned
facility
that
the
only
access
to
the
site
on
a
regular
basis
is
for
maintenance
activities.
L
D
L
Yes,
and
no
the
there
on
the
facility
today,
if
you
from
you'll
notice
on
this
site,
you'll
probably
have
realized
by
now
that
the
site
plan
is
is
turned
on
its
side,
so
north
is
actually
to
the
left
and
South
is
to
the
right,
because
of
the
way
that
the
the
roads
are
running
north,
the
run
roads
actually
run
north
and
south.
So
on
the
facility
today
on
this
property
is
a
an
electrical
substation,
but
there
is
also
office
buildings
on
the
site.
L
Today,
this
the
facility
will
be
completely
renovated
and
upgraded
and
expanded,
so
the
office
building
would
go
away
and
the
expanded
elec
facilities
will
take
over
the
rest
of
the
site.
This
Cee
there
is
a
Cee
building
on
the
site
today,
but
because
of
the
expansion
of
the
facilities
that
existing
Cee
Building
will
be
removed
and
the
new
one
would
be
placed
in
the
locations
shown
on
the
site
plan.
So.
L
Of
the
building,
I
am
NOT
specific
on
the
height
I
know
it's
about
it's
just
a
single-story
facility.
It's
not,
it
does
not
have
multiple
levels,
so
it
is
a
one-story
building,
approximately
3,200
square
feet.
Okay,
thank
you.
B
E
L
The
building
is
primarily
communication
facilities
that
facilitate
the
the
way
that
the
the
substation
communicates
with
other
substations
with
other
Duke
Duke
Energy
facilities.
So
it's
exactly
what
it
you
could
imagine
it's
just
a
lot
of
communication
equipment
and
electrical
components
within
it
was.
E
L
Did
have
careful
discussion
of
that.
It's
typical
that
the
C
building
is
on
the
perimeter
of
a
site
for
acts
and
for
distance
requirements
so
being
located
where
it
is,
which
would
be
again
no
closer
to
nineteen
than
any
of
the
fencing
perimeter.
Fencing
on
the
site
today
was
deemed
to
be
an
appropriate
location,
but.
E
L
L
More
located
on
the
northern
half
of
the
site,
which
is
where
the
existing
facilities,
the
existing
electrical
facilities
are
today,
while
today
on
the
more
southern
part
of
the
site,
is
an
office
building.
So,
as
I
indicated,
the
all
of
the
electrical
facilities
as
in
this,
this
upgrade
and
renovation
will
expand
to
the
south.
So.
E
L
Is
not
in
the
exact
location,
but
it's
it
is
very
closed.
It
was
just
because
of
all
of
the
various
components
of
the
substation
that
have
to
be
fit
into
this.
Within
this
this
fenced
area
it
was
and
to
provide
that
separation
requirement.
E
G
L
L
E
Cemetery
is
east
of
CNN.
What
south
of
it
because
I
know
there's
a
gas
station.
They
believe
it
to
be
chef,
XR,
Michelle
and
my
concern
is
that's
on
a
very
steep
hill
coming
out
of
that
particular
gas
station
and
very
easily
cars
approaching
19.
If,
if
you're
coming
out
of
that
gas
station
and
a
car
coming
north
on
19
or
to
have
a
collision
between
the
two
cars,
it
would
definitely
hit
this
particular
spot
and
put
down
a
lot
of
the
communication
that
you
are
proposing
to
put
that.
L
Well,
there
is
there's
at
least
40
feet
from
the
edge
of
the
pavement
to
the
fence
location,
so
there
is
is
more
more
space
than
you
might
think
from
our
conversation,
that
is,
of
that
would
separate
any
vehicles
from
that
potential.
There's
also
I'm,
not
sure.
If
all
of
you
are
completely
familiar
with
this
particular
stretch
of
us
19,
there
is
a
guardrail
that
is
adjacent
to
the
roadway
that
separates
the
sidewalk
from
the
roadway.
So
there
is
additional
safety
measure
between
any
cars
that
would
be
on
the
the
road
and
this
area.
E
E
B
C
B
L
Certainly,
and
and
I
absolutely
understand
that
question
and
I
can
tell
you
that
with
the
expansion
of
the
facility
and
the
need
to
expand
the
facility
and
upgrade
it
just
a
number
of
items,
go
into
the
consideration
in
the
design
of
that
site.
For
example,
this
this
site
has
facilities
on
it
that
are
almost
30
years
old.
Obviously,
technology
has
changed
since
that
time,
design
of
electrical
facilities
and
substations
has
has
changed
since
that
time.
L
B
L
L
Let
me
clarify
my
answer:
the
site
today
is
a
common.
Approximately
one.
Almost
one
point,
eight
close
to
two
acres
of
that
site
is
substation
facility.
There
is
also
an
office
building
on
it
and
parking.
The
plan
is
to
expand
the
substation
facility
to
take
up
the
entire
site,
so
there
will
not
be
any
left
over
land.
The
entire
site
will
be
substation,
substation
facilities
and
components
and
there's
there
should
be
a
site
plan.
I'm.
Sorry,
mr.
chairman,
there
should
be
a
site
plan
in
your
application
package
that
provides
some
additional
detail.
B
G
L
L
L
A
G
A
G
B
L
Well,
I
believe
your
code
would
allow
us
to
appeal
the
denial
and
that
would
that
would
be
our
next
step,
because
we
have
exhausted
the
the
design
options
on
this
site
in
putting
in
the
facilities
that
are
planned
and
considered
necessary
for
this
site
and,
as
I
mentioned,
unfortunately
came
to
the
conclusion
that
we
did.
It
was
necessary
to
request
this
variance.
B
L
G
C
B
B
E
When
I
reviewed
this
from
the
onset,
it
does
not
fit
our
number
one
criteria,
it
did
not
fit
our
number
two
criteria,
it
did
not
fit
our
three
criteria
and
it
did
not
fit
our
four
criteria.
The
only
and
one
it
actually
was
criteria.
Five
though
I'm
kind
of
stuck
on
not
knowing
how
to
proceed
or
I
should
say
I
do
know
now,
I
have
to
proceed
just
the
fact
that
we
are
kind
of
held
to
the
four
the
four
failures
to
meet
our
criteria.
B
D
B
Yes,
it
seems
to
me
that
if
this
were
a
regular
homeowner,
they
would
be
forced
to
build
within
their
own
footprint
with
five
acres
of
land.
That
would
be
a
way
to
either
do
that
or
move
the
puzzle
pieces
around
in
such
a
way
that
they
didn't
encroach
and
wouldn't
require
it.
That,
though
it
were
to
apply
the
law
evenly
equally
to
all
residents,
business
and
so
on,
and
we
would
have
to
hold
them
to
account
because
they
do
not.
B
And
I
mean
if
we
can't
consider
cost
right
so,
if
they're
saying
that
it's
because
you
would
cost
them
more
money,
it
she's
that
efficient
right.
That
was
efficient
reason
to
do
it
rather
than
find
another
design,
but
I
suspect
that
that
had
to
do
with
cost
it
would
cost
them
money
and
time
to
find
another
site
to
do
their
expansion.
B
K
I
tend
to
agree
with
the
stuffings
interpretation
as
I
understand
and
read
the
documents.
It's
not
Duke
electrics
requirement
that
is
causing
this
need
for
the
setback.
It's
the
regulatory
bodies
configuration
and
that's
why
I
was
asking
about
the
regulatory
bodies,
how
often
those
changed
and
if
that
would
require
a
new,
so
I
can
see
where
the
staff
would
say
this
wasn't
caused
by
them
themselves.
But
I
would
like
to
hear
further
from
the
staff
if
I'm
interpreting,
that
the
way
that
you
were
interpreting.
C
Yes,
and
that
was
I-
was
going
to
jump
in
and
add
that
this
is
a
unique,
fairly
unique
use.
You
know
an
electrical
substation
has
a
lot
of
restrictions
as
to
how
they
can
operate
safely,
and
you
know
the
of
the
applicants.
First
choice
is,
of
course,
always
to
make
it
fit
on
the
property
and
that's
how
they
were.
C
Oh,
that's
how
they're
always
advised
my
staff
is
to
make
it
work,
make
it
fit
so
we're
not
electrical
experts,
but
we
are
taking
the
applicant
at
their
word,
based
on
their
expertise
that
there
is
no
way
to
meet
the
requirements
for
safety.
The
requirements
for
preventing
access
and
the
requirements
to
safely
operate
the
substation
without
the
variance.
C
So
that's
that
sort
of
unique
situation,
the
unique
conditions
that
we
looked
at
when
we
did
our
review
of
the
criteria,
so
it's
a
little
different
than
a
standard
building
and
again
we
always
do
advise
the
applicants
to
look
for
a
way
to
make
it
fit
on
the
side.
It
is
a
large
site,
but
at
the
same
time,
I
believe
that,
with
all
that's
on
the
property,
there
are
some
restrictions.
That
would
definitely
prohibit
putting
the
building
elsewhere.
So
that's
the
reason
we're
supporting
the
the
variance
request,
I'd.
G
Like
to
make
a
point
along
those
lines,
if
we
look
at
the
last
plan
that
they
have
in
last
page,
they
have
all
this
complex
equipment
here
that
is
to
west
they're
practically
on
the
fence.
So
they
might
need
this
space
because
of
the
type
of
equipment
they
put
in
here,
and
we
have
no
expectation
that
to
say
otherwise.
C
D
F
D
E
Well,
in
my
opinion,
since
this
is
kind
of
as
mr.
Boris
said
earlier,
there
are
diagrams
and
specifications
that
are
women
above
my
pay
scale,
and
that's
why
I
asked
the
question.
What
would
happen
if
we
do
not
approve
this
variance
and
it
would
be,
they
would
go
then
above
us
to
the
next
decision,
making
what
you
know.
Probably
the
commissioners
actually
sorry.
E
B
B
B
C
This
is
a
request
to
remove
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
30
feet,
to
26
feet
or
foot
variance
for
the
construction
of
a
12
foot
by
15
foot
addition
to
an
existing
single-family
residence.
The
applicant
had
originally
considered
constructing
this
addition
to
the
front
of
the
house,
however,
because
of
the
potential
for
flooding
due
to
the
slope
of
the
property
downward
from
the
road
and
the
drainage
design
necessary
to
accommodate
that
the
applicant
could
not.
C
The
addition
to
the
front
was
not
feasible,
so
the
applicant
has
proposed
putting
this
on
the
rear
of
the
house.
The
applicant,
the
proposed
addition
on
the
rear
of
the
house
will
not
extend
beyond
an
existing
covered
porch
that
already
encroaches
into
the
sub
Mack
that
was
constructed
in
1970
in
the
1970s
and
again,
there
is
a
there
is
a
survey
showing
the
location
of
the
existing
structures
and
the
proposed
additions.
This
property
is
located
at
17,
11,
Avoca
Drive,
and
it
is
zoned
single-family
residential
r100.
C
The
addition
of
the
front
of
the
house
would
not
be
feasible
because
of
that.
This
is
a
condition
that
does
not
apply
generally
to
other
properties
located
in
the
zoning
district.
The
second
criteria,
the
condition
was
not
self
created.
Our
finding
is
that
this
is
not
the
slope
where
the
property
is
not
the
result
of
actions
by
the
applicant.
The
third
criteria
is
a
literal
enforcement
would
deny
the
applicant
reasonable
use
of
the
property
or
legal
in
conforming
buildings
or
structures.
C
Literal
enforcement
of
this
minimum
rear
yard
setback
would
prevent
the
construction
of
a
12
foot
by
15
foot
addition.
This
addition
could
have
been
constructed
in
the
front
of
the
residence
if
the
unique
condition,
as
we
described
discussed
was
it
would
not
was
not
present.
The
proposed
addition
is
something
that
is
commonly
enjoyed
by
other
properties
in
the
area
and
they
are
not
proposing
to
extend
this
addition
and
the
rear
beyond
the
existing
covered
porch
on
the
site.
C
The
granting
of
the
variance
request
will
allow
the
construction
of
an
addition
that,
on
a
typical
lot
in
this
zoning
district
could
be
accommodated
in
the
front
of
the
existing
house.
But,
as
we
discussed
because
of
the
unique
situation
with
the
drainage,
it
is
required
to
be
built
in
the
rear
of
the
house.
C
The
fifth
criteria
is
a
grand
gain
of
the
variants
will
not
substantially
diminish
property
values.
The
proposed
addition
would
that
would
be
permitted
by
granting
of
the
4-foot
rear
yard
setback
variance
will
not
extend
beyond
the
rear
of
the
existing
covered
porch.
Therefore,
the
grantee,
you
know
the
variance
is
not
expected
to
significantly
affect
property
values
in
the
surrounding
areas,
nor
substantially
affect
the
day
some
properties
basic
Tony's,
finding.
D
B
C
C
C
M
C
A
N
Yes,
just
like
like
he
mentioned,
we
actually
were
looking
to
add
the
addition
on
the
front
of
the
house,
but
due
to
the
design
in
our
lot,
the
house
is
below
the
road
and
then
there's
a
swale
coming
down
and
then
back
up
to
the
house
to
where.
If
we
went
any
farther
forward,
we
actually
stopped
the
flow
of
water
that
drains.
N
You
know,
through
the
yard,
into
the
back
of
the
property
and
then
also
it
would
allow
water
to
impro
chin
to
the
addition
so
yeah,
our
only
choice,
was
to
actually
go
to
the
back
and,
like
I
said,
we
have
an
existing
porch
there
from
the
70s,
and
we
just
want
to.
Basically,
you
know,
move
the
addition
and
close
that
in
and
it
it
wouldn't
go
any
further
than
the
existing
porch.
E
M
C
B
B
E
N
N
16
up
the
thing,
so
what
happens
is
when
the
water
comes
down
and
actually
so,
instead
of
imprinted
a
house
it?
Actually,
you
know
because
the
middle
of
the
driveway
is
lower.
It
actually
allows
water
to
it's
like
a
swale
that
allows
it
to
go
to
the
side
and
then
around
this
house
to
the
back,
which
is
a
lot
lower,
and
you
know
when
we
asked
the
contractor
I
have
a
letter,
email
from
the
contractor,
I'm,
not
sure.
If
it's
your
paperwork,
you
know
he
would
saying.
E
N
Is
even
lower
that
allows
the
water
to
so
it
doesn't
come
into
the
house.
It
actually
allows
it
to
come
around
the
side
through
the
yard
through
the
soil,
and
he
was
saying
pretty
much
I'm
reading
his
saying
the
current
driveway
has
a
swell
that
allows
the
water
to
drain
easterly.
If
the
home
was
extended
forward
towards
the
road
it
would
the
Swale
in
the
driveway
and
the
drainage
on
the
lot.
If
the
hope,
if
the
home
was
extended
to
the
front,
it
would
likely
result
in
water
intrusion
into
the
front
room
addition
see.
E
One
of
what
I'm
explaining
to
you
is
is
this:
there
are
homes
on
Riverside
Drive
right
around
the
corner
from
you
that
drop
down,
probably
from
the
roadway
to
the
driveway,
six,
seven,
eight
feet
and
I'm
sure
with
the
heavy
rains
we
have
here
in
Florida.
This
water
comes
down
like
a
waterfall
and
for
some
reason,
they're
not
flooding.
E
D
If
I
may,
you
know
mr.
Eisen
rice
I
see
what
you're
saying
actually
I
live
on
a
street
off
of
Riverside,
and
there
is
thankfully
it's
just
garage,
but
I
actually
just
last
week
had
flooding
because
of
the
unique
slope
of
a
certain
part
of
my
property.
So
I
like
when
I
remember
when
I
was
reading,
this
I'm,
like
I,
could
picture
it
because
I
kind
of
live
in
something
like
this.
G
You
know
add
point
at
the
road:
the
elevation
is
15
feet
and
change
as
you're
getting
closer
to
the
front
of
the
house.
It
drops
down
to
14
and
then
at
the
corner
of
the
house
right
below
where
it
says
what
nine
it's
about
13
feet.
So
he
has
a
point
that
this
thing
is
dropping
by
two
feet,
not
by
a
six
inches.
So
by
dropping
two
feet
it
makes
sense
that
to
put
a
structure
in
front
of
the
house,
it
would
be
counterproductive.
N
No
I
mean
I,
like
I,
said
I'm,
just
you
know
I'm
trying
to
go
the
route
that
did
the
contractor.
You
know
kind
of
advised
me.
We
wanted
to
go
out
the
front,
but
that
was
the
whole
issue
when
he
started
looking
at
it
so
and
then
the
back.
You
know
it's
we're
not
going
past
our
existing
porch
in
it.
It
actually
flows
with
the
house
very
nicely
and
and
everything
so.
A
You
can
make
a
site
visit
that
we
don't
recommend
it.
However,
anything
that
you
discuss
with
the
board
as
far
as
the
site
business
concern
is
not
to
be
considered,
because
you
cannot
give
evidence
as
a
member
of
the
board.
It
would
be
like
the
judge,
testifying
at
a
trial
and
then
making
a
decision.
D
C
Yes,
the
applicant
is
requesting
to
construct
a
bathhouse
larger
than
two
hundred
square
feet.
Four
hundred
and
sixteen
point
five
square
feet
is
what's
proposed
and
to
reduce
the
minimum
side
yard
setback
from
five
feet
to
2.8
feet,
which
is
a
2.2
foot
variance.
The
applicant
has
indicated
that
the
variance
requests
are
necessary
because
the
location
of
the
septic
system
on
the
and
the
slope
of
the
property
prevent
locating
the
bathhouse
at
least
five
feet
away
from
the
side
lot
line.
C
The
applicant,
however,
is
not
provided
a
justification
for
requesting
that
the
bathhouse
succeed,
the
200
square
foot,
maximum
of
section
36
point
O
on
a
of
the
land
development
code.
In
regard
to
the
second
criteria,
the
that
the
condition
is
not
self
created,
the
location
of
the
septic
system
on
and
the
slope
of
the
property
are
not
the
results
of
applicant
actions
by
the
applicant.
C
The
third
criteria
regarding
littoral
enforcement
of
the
code
denying
the
applicant
reasonable
use
of
the
property
or
illegally
conforming
buildings.
Our
finding
is
that
the
legal
littoral
enforcement
of
the
bathhouse
maximum
square
footage
and
minimum
side
yard
setback
would
not
deny
the
applicant
reasonable
use
of
the
property
or
structures
the
applicant
has
not
demonstrated
the
need
to
build
a
bathhouse
that
exceeds
the
200
square
foot
maximum
and
if
the
and,
if
you
reduce
the
size
of
the
bathhouse,
the
minimum
side
yard
setback
could
be
met.
C
Fourth
criteria:
granting
of
the
variance
will
not
confer
any
special
privilege
that
is
not
allowed
for
other
lands,
buildings
or
structures
in
the
same
zoning
district.
Our
finding
is
that
the
granting
of
the
variance
request
would
permit
the
construction
of
a
bathhouse
that
exceeds
the
maximum
allowed
in
all
residential
zoning
districts.
Number
five:
the
granting
of
the
variance
will
not
have
substantially
diminished
property
values
or
substantially
interfere
with
or
injure
the
property
rights
of
others.
C
Our
finding
is
that
the
granting
of
the
variance
would
allow
the
construction
of
a
math
house
that
exceeds
a
maximum
allowable
square
footage
by
two
hundred
and
sixteen
point
five
square
feet
and
the
bath
house
would
be
located
within
two
point:
eight
feet
of
an
adjacent
property,
a
structure
of
the
size
and
at
this
location
could
adversely
affect
the
adjacent
properties,
particularly
the
the
property
that
is
immediately
east
of
this
site.
So,
based
on
these
findings,
our
recommendation
is
for
denial
of
this
variance
request.
Thank.
E
M
C
Yeah
I'll
let
the
applicant
answer
that
yeah
I
get
it
because
of
the
slope
of
the
property,
and
you
can
see
on
the
the
drawing
where
the
septic
tank
is
located,
but
yeah
you
would
think
it.
You
would
think
there's
available
land
to
the
to
the
west
to
the
center.
You
know,
but
yeah,
that's
a
good
question
for
the
applicant
okay.
G
B
J
E
A
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
we
can
hear
you
I
I
cannot
see
you
so
I'm
gonna
trust
that
you're
raising
your
right
hand,
but
do
you
swear
or
affirm
that
the
testimony
you're
about
to
give
us
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing,
but
the
truth
I
do.
Thank
you.
You
may
go
ahead
and
give
your
presentation
thank.
J
You
so
I'm,
not
sure
this
thing
seems
to
be
have
gotten
awfully
confused
and
I
was
I,
recall,
being
you
know,
kind
of
specific,
so
I,
don't
know
where
that
came
from.
But
everything
listed
in
the
staff
report
from
the
staff
report
to
the
description
written
on
the
sign
in
my
free
art
is
totally
confusing.
The
sciences
that
we
are
requesting,
a
variance
to
increase
the
maximum
floor
area
for
for
an
accessory
structure,
and
that's
not
what
we're
trying
to
do
at
all
and
we're
also
not
trying
to
move
the
structure.
J
All
I
want
to
do
with
Edie
Plumbing
and
to
an
existing
structure
to
use
it
as
a
bath
house
and
the
reason
for
the
variance
is
because
there
is
a
it
exceed
the
the
existing
building
exceeds
the
200
square
foot.
You
know
limit,
so
we
don't
need
a
side
yard
setback
because
well
we
will
not
be
changing
that
we're
not
looking
to
add
to
the
structure
we're
only
looking
to
add
plumbing
to
a
bath
house
inside
of
an
existing
building
that
exceeds
a
square
foot
for
a
bath
house.
J
That
is
the
sole
and
only
reason
for
the
variance
it
does
not
seem
sensible
to
tear
down
half
of
the
building
in
order
to
meet
the
square
footage
allowed.
That's
why
we
are
asking
for
the
variance
in
addition
between
the
between
the
house
and
the
building
is,
would
be
the
only
place
that
I
would
be
able
to
build
a
new
bath
house,
because
everything
else
is
occupied
with
trees,
and
then
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
build
there
there
either,
because
we've
learned
that
our
septic
and
leach
field
is
all
through
there.
J
We
are,
we
are
looking
to
keep.
We
are
willing
and
looking
to
keep
the
bathhouse
portion
of
the
structure.
That's
there
under
the
two
hundred
square
feet,
that's
allowed
and
leave.
The
rest
of
the
structure
like
it
is,
is
on
finished
storage
space.
In
addition,
I
have
a
letter
that
supports
me
getting
this
variance
that
is
signed
by
the
two
closest
neighbors
adjacent
to
my
property.
J
G
B
C
It
I
did
misspeak.
It
is
an
existing
structure
that
he
wants
to
convert
to
a
bathhouse,
but
the
problem
is
it:
it
exceeds
it's
the
same
variance.
It
would
be
the
same
variance
request
that
it
does
exceed
the
minimum
size
for
a
bathhouse
and
the
setback
for
a
bathhouse
or
an
accessory
structure,
for
that
matter
could
not
be
met.
C
D
B
J
M
B
J
Bath
we're
wanting
to
keep
the
bathhouse
portion
of
the
structure
under
200
feet,
but
the
building
itself
is
four
hundred
and
something
like
sixteen
four
hundred
and
sixteen
or
something
like
that
square
feet.
D
E
C
C
G
B
D
D
I
may
I
have
another
question
for
the
city,
so
in
reading
what
you
have
here
for
the
the
code
requirements
thirty-six
point:
oh
one,
a
so
storage
structures,
outdoor
shelter,
sheds,
bath
houses
and
similar
structures
shall
not
exceed
two
hundred
square
feet.
I
mean
so
we're
talking
like
that,
could
be
a
detached
garage.
D
C
D
C
C
G
C
A
I
can
maybe
see
to
that
too,
because
I
think
we're
focusing
in
on
bath
house,
but
as
Louie
read
the
code,
it
says,
storage,
structures,
outdoor
shelters,
sheds,
bath
houses
and
similar
structures
shall
not
exceed
two
hundred
square
feet
in
a
residential
district.
So
I
think
that,
even
if
there
wasn't
a
bathroom
in
it
and
it
wasn't
considered
a
bath
house,
it
still
would
not
be
able
to
exceed
the
200
square
feet
as
an
accessory
structure
on
the
property
and
detached
garages
are
specifically
are
in
the
next
sections.
A
It
addresses
detached
garages,
so
that
kind
of,
even
though
as
a
hypothetical,
miss
Turner.
That
kind
of
talks
about
that.
If
you
put
a
bathroom
in
a
detached
garage,
then
does
that
make
it
a
bath
house
not
necessarily
because
it's
specifically
called
out
within
the
code.
So
I
think
this
is
just
talking
about
it.
Slumping
a
select
type
of
structure
together
as
an
accessory
accessory
structure
that
can't
exceed
the
200
square
feet.
Okay,
thank
you.
C
Well,
it
depends
on
when
it
was
built.
You
know
if
it
was
a
structure
that
was
recently
built
without
a
permit
I
think
there
could
be
action
taken
on
that.
It
does
not
meet
the
setbacks
for
a
storage
structure
or
a
bathhouse,
but
you
know
with
the
granting
of
the
variance
that
would
make
the
location
legal.
C
D
Then,
in
picking
up
on
that,
so
for
understanding
things
correctly,
as
Miss
rich
said,
if
we
were
to
grant
this
variance,
then
they
could
move
forward
with
the
permitting
and
if
in
the
permitting
they,
it
was
determined
that
there
were
missing.
In
the
you
know
the
application
process
to
permit
for
the
Pont
plumbing
and
so
on,
and
then
it's
determined
that
this
building
the
structure
itself
was
not
properly
permitted.
Then
the
homeowner
would
have
to
address
the
building
itself
before
he
could
even
move
forward
with
his
original
intent
of
plumbing
correct
yeah.
C
G
G
C
That
assumes
I'm
speaking
of
zoning
setbacks,
they're
still
building
code
requirements
that
have
to
be
met
and
that
that
would
have
to
be
looked
at
at
the
building
permitting
process.
But
yeah.
You
are
you're,
essentially
correct.
If
it
was
built
prior
to
those
setback
requirements,
then
yeah,
then
it's
illegal
per
zoning.
B
E
E
A
D
B
C
C
A
Yeah,
that's
gonna
be
up
to
the
applicant,
so
you
can
certainly
ask
if
the
applicant
would
like
to
continue
and
gather
some
additional
information
prior
to
the
next
meeting.
But
it's
not
the
applicants
discretion
whether
or
not
they
want
to
continue
or
what
are
they
not?
They
want
to
vote
this
evening.
Okay,.
G
No
matter
what
whether
it
was
permitted
or
it's
over
20
years
old,
whatever
the
case
is,
he
wants
to
put
200
square
feet
in
there
of
a
bath
house
and
wants
to
leave
the
rest
of
it
as
storage.
Do
you
have
a
problem
permitting
that,
as
far
as
the
variance,
the
variance
and
question
is
concerned,
yeah.
C
Under
the
current
rules,
the
city
would
not
allow
a
two
hundred
square
foot
bath
house
with
over
200
square
foot
of
storage.
You
know
that
it's
all
considered,
storage
and
bath
house
I
think
it
all
hinges
on.
When
this
this
building
was
built
and
how
is
permitted
but
yeah,
you
could
not
build
a
new
structure
like
that
with
200
square
foot,
a
bath
house
and
200
square
feet
of
something
else.
It's.
B
H
D
B
J
B
J
E
B
A
J
J
Yeah
I
think
I
just
need
the
vote
and
you
know
I
mean
if
the
problem
is
that
I
offer
too
just
keep
the
bathhouse
portion
separate
from
the
rest.
It
seems
like
some
of
the
members,
don't
like
that
I
don't
mind,
making
the
whole
entire
400
feet
of
bath
house
I
was
just
I
thought.
That
would
be
a
good
gesture
for
me
to
try
to
keep
the
bathhouse.
You
know
under
the
square
footage
allowed.
E
B
G
E
Completely
I
agree
with
you
was
the
poorest.
This
has
to
be
a
variance
for
a
bathtub
for
an
existing
structure
that
what
they
want
to
convert
to
a
bath
house
rather
than
because
here
it
has
that
the
septic
system
is
blocking
it
because
of
a
slope
of
the
property.
I.
Think,
though,
that
is
incorrect,.
G
Think
would
be
doubting
the
the
owner
understands
what
the
specifics
are
here
correct,
maybe
it's
confused
and
while
we're
talking
about
it,
I
understand
his
situation
about
surgery
and
all
that,
but
I
know
we
can
make
any
suggestions.
On
the
other
hand,
to
go
for
a
variance
that's
already
there.
It
doesn't
make
sense.
B
K
J
K
E
K
Application
Board
of
Adjustment
application,
it
starts
with
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
property
owner
applicant
and
then
you
scroll
down
after
the
property
location,
and
it
has
requested
action.
Oh
the
only
thing
that's
checked
is
to
the
right
where
it
says
other
size
variance
for
bath
house.
So
I
would
say
you
know,
motion
to
table
till
next
month
to
have
this
staff
relook
at
how
they
handle
this
initial
application.
G
A
Mean
there
is
a
motion
and
a
second
on
the
table.
However,
I
would
advise
that
the
application
that
the
applicant
put
out
first
of
all,
it's
the
applicants
decision,
whether
or
not
they
want
to
move
forward
or
not.
Second
of
all,
the
application,
while
the
the
box
is
checked
that
says
other
and
it
says
a
size
variance.
A
If
you
look
in
the
described
request,
it
says
a
requesting
a
variance
to
use
the
space
of
the
building
in
my
backyard
aprox
only
400
square
feet
as
a
bathhouse,
which
would
allow
me
to
add
plumbing,
and
it
doesn't
speak
to
this,
to
the
the
side
setback
at
all,
so
hey,
I'm,
saying
so.
I
think
that
tabeling,
it
is
not
necessarily
the
issue.
I
think
the
issue
is
whether
or
not
the
size
variance
is
being
voted
on
tonight.
A
So
then
I
think
with
that
information
we
should
ask
the
applicant,
since
they
only
reflected
the
size,
variance
and
not
the
side,
setback
variance
if
they'd
like,
if
he
would
like
to
move
forward
with
the
size,
variance
and
now
being
able
to
add
his
plumbing,
considering
it
a
bath
house,
I
mean
I
I.
Don't
disagree,
I
think
that
there
needs
to
be
more
information
for
you
all
to
consider,
but
ultimately
that's
going
to
be
left
up
to
the
applicant.
C
J
D
Well,
here's
if
I
made,
because
I
believe
the
applicant
had
brought
up
looked
at
the
Pinellas
County
property
appraiser.
This
is
in
our
packet,
which
is
page
two
of
the
property
tax,
page
and
I
know
this
isn't
the
most
formal
way
of
doing
it.
But
this
page
y'all
can
see
it
the
one
that
has
the
aerial
property
and
it
does
have
that
parcel
that
that
number
that
he
had
read
and
the
description
is
shed
and
the
date
is
something
like
June
2001.
So
it
is
permitted
as
a
shed
in
2001.
B
A
Eagle
II
speaking,
the
application
is,
or
the
sky's
variance
only
so
I
would
say,
and
less
and
mr.
the
accident
I'm
just
gonna
put
their
last
name
I'm.
So
sorry,
the
applicant
has
said
that
he's
not
seeking
the
side
yard
variance.
So
if
we,
if
the
applicant
can
agree
that
that's
all
he's
seeking
is
the
size
variance,
we
can
have
the
motion
to
table
withdrawn
and
we
can
make
a
motion
on
just
that
variance,
as
requested.
A
B
B
J
A
G
J
B
J
B
B
K
M
A
D
B
B
F
B
F
A
B
A
And
that's
that's
not
necessarily
the
sunshine
sunshine
violation,
but
I
do
see
what
you're
saying
the
governor
has
suspended
the
requirement
for
an
in-person
forum,
and
things
like
that.
So
there
have
been
executive
orders
that
have
come
down
from
the
governor
himself
that
have
allowed
cities
to
move
to
the
virtual
meeting.
So
it
I
wouldn't
say
an
abrogation
of
the
statutes.
But
he
has
the
power
to
do
that
and
he
has
done
that
once
those
executive
orders
are
either
expired
or
hear
appeals
them.