![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/c2aGNFsNvxA/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments November 18, 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
To
watch
that
was
nice,
I
have
a
client
who
actually
owns
a
race
car
team.
B
C
D
E
G
B
F
B
F
B
H
D
G
I
E
I
B
F
J
D
B
This
is
a
quasi.
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
where
the
board
of
adjustment
acts
in
a
quasi-judicial
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity
out
of
quasi-judicial
hearing.
It
is
not
the
board's
function
to
make
law,
but
rather
to
apply
law
that
has
already
been
established
in
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
The
board
is
required
by
law
to
make
findings
of
fact,
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
apply
those
findings
of
fact
to
previously
established
criteria
contained
in
the
code
of
ordinances
in
order
to
make
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
before
it.
B
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
at
this
hearing
that
the
law
considers
competence,
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.
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
B
E
F
A
A
The
applicant
is
here
today
requesting
variance
approval
to
allow
a
non-conforming
lot
of
record
that
has
been
under
common
ownership,
with
an
adjacent
property
to
be
buildable.
The
land
development
code
establishes
that
if,
at
any
time,
a
owner
of
a
non-conforming
lot
of
record
owns
adjoining
land,
the
lot
shall
be
combined
to
meet
the
minimum
lot
requirements.
The
two
properties
that
we're
looking
at
today
are
shown
here
on
the
screen.
The
subject
property
specifically
is
lot
11,
which
is
the
solid
yellow
line
and
then
lot
12
to
the
south
with
the
dotted
line.
A
A
In
1957,
a
new
land
development
code
went
into
effect
and
these
properties
fell
into
the
r-1a
zoning
district.
The
minimum
lot
area
was
7
500
square
feet
for
that
district.
Both
of
these
lots
are
less
than
that
in
area.
Therefore,
they
are
considered
legally
non-conforming
in
1960
the
home
on
lot,
12
was
built
and
then
in
1984,
the
owner
of
lot
12
purchased
slot
11.
Putting
these
two
lots
into
common
ownership
in
1990,
our
current
land
development
code
went
into
effect,
and
these
properties
were
then
located
in
the
r-100
zoning
district.
A
For
that
district,
the
minimum
lot
area
was
10
000
square
feet
and
the
minimum
lot
width
was
75
feet
and
in
both
of
these
instances,
these
lots
do
not
meet
those,
so
they
continue
to
be
non-conforming
lots
in
1992
lot,
12
the
one
with
the
house.
The
house
was
sold
separately
and
in
1995
they
went
under
common
ownership
again
when
the
owner
of
lot
12
purchased,
lot
11.
A
and
then
in
2019.
The
applicant
here
tonight
acquired
both
of
these
properties
and
then
earlier
this
year,
lot
12
was
sold
separately
and
the
applicant
continues
to
own
lot.
11.,
the
land
development
code
establishes
a
set
of
review
standards
for
variances
for
non-conforming
lots
of
record.
This
is
to
be
used
by
the
board
to
consider
whether
or
not
the
lot
is
able
to
be
built
upon
those
standards
are
listed
here
on
the
screen.
A
A
Since
the
staff
report
was
prepared
and
you
received
your
packets,
we
have
been
in
correspondence
with
a
neighboring
property
owner.
There
was
some
question
about
whether
or
not
the
applicant
owned
the
entire
lot
11
or
just
a
portion.
So
for
clarification
we
wanted
to
let
the
board
know
that
staff's
recommendation
was
based
off
of
the
understanding
of
the
ownership
of
the
entirety
of
lot
11,
as
opposed
to
a
portion
with
that
I'll
pass.
It
back
to
the
board.
F
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Excuse
me,
thank
you
very
much
and
if
we
can
start
with
our
public
comment,
if
ask
the
secretary,
have
we
haven't
received
any
emails
or
correspondence
related
to
this
agenda
item?
I
see
that
we
do
when
we
walked
in
today.
We
have
some
new
material
that
has
been
presented
to
us.
C
C
C
It's
regarding
variants,
application,
20-127
park,
avenue,
lot,
11,
block
d
innis
park
here
and
after
the
subject
parcel.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
this
letter
is
being
sent
on
behalf
of
my
mother,
mary
d'amandis,
mayor
g
dimandis,
the
owner
of
115
north
park,
avenue,
formerly
known
as
336
park,
avenue
the
property
immediately
to
the
north
of
the
subject
parcel
we
object
to
the
above
referenced
requested
variants
to
allow
construction
on
the
subject
parcel
here
and
after
the
variance
for
the
following
reasons,
which
are
based
upon
the
facts
that
we
currently
understand
them.
C
The
subject
parcel
was
originally
owned
by
my
parents
and
part
of
their
as
part
of
their
115
north
park,
avenue,
home
and
property
in
1984.
My
family
sold
the
subject
property
to
mr
and
mrs
vaporus,
who
wanted
additional
land
for
their
home
on
lot
12
here
and
after
the
home
lot,
it
was
sold
with
the
understanding
that
it
was
not
itself
a
buildable
lot
and
would
be
combined
with
a
forever
used
with
and
forever
used
as
part
of
the
porous
home
lot.
B
Cam,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
stop
you
right
there
and
I'm
gonna
defer
to
the
chair
on
this
matter.
This
is
a
very
long
email.
I
know
that
we
had
a
certain
script
set
up
for
when
we
were
doing
zoom
meetings,
but
we
are
now
back
in
physical
format
right.
This
email
was
provided
to
all
of
you
this
evening
and
has
been
made
part
of
the
record,
so
I
defer
to
the
board,
but
my
suggestion
would
be
not
to
read
it
in
its
entirety
into
the
record.
B
F
That's
a
very
good
point,
and
I
agree
so
this
was
presented
to
us
just
this
evening
and
as
we
know
you
know,
we
typically
have
thanks
to
staff
presenting
well
in
advance,
very
detailed
reports
so-
and
this
is
a
lot
of
very
good
information
that
I
feel
deserves
our
time
to
give
attention
to.
F
If
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
my
fellow
board
members,
but
thinking
you
know,
we
have,
you
know
four
pages
of
content
which
are
worthy
of
proper
attention
that
are
presented.
So
I
don't
know
how
much
time
our
fellow
board
members
have
had
a
chance
to
review
this
information.
Do
you
even
do
you
have
a
copy,
sir?.
B
And
I
might
also
add
two
and
I
know
we're
kind
of
going
out
a
little
bit
of
order
here
I
mean
I
certainly
would
like
to
give
the
applicant.
You
know
his
it's
time
to
present
his
case.
I
will
say
that
I
I
am
going
to
give
instruction
to
this
board
that
some
of
the
information
that
is
contained
in
this
letter
has
to
do
with
ownership
of
the
property.
B
It
is
not
the
purview
of
this
board
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
applicant
owns
the
property
or
whether
or
not
the
the
history
as
set
forth
in
the
email
determines
ownership.
That
is
not
something
that
you
are
are
tasked
with
doing,
and
the
code
is
very
silent
on
whether
or
not
the
applicant
has
to
prove
ownership
understanding
from
a
legal
point
of
view.
B
If
you
grant
a
variance
to
someone
who
does
not
own
the
portion
of
the
property
or
the
part,
the
property,
that's
in
question,
it's
void
on
its
face,
so
my
recommendation
to
you
would
be
to
take
what's
in
the
email
for
evidence
or
for
consideration,
as
it
applies
to
the
criteria
that
you
are
to
be
considering
this
evening.
B
However,
that
the
variance,
if
you
are
to
choose
to
grant
it,
should
be
conditioned
on
the
fact
that
if
it's
granted,
the
applicant
is
required
to
show
sufficient
proof
of
ownership
to
the
city
that
this,
when
applying
for
the
any
building
permits
that
the
city
would
be
able
to
determine
ownership
of
the
property.
However,
the
city
does
that
the
city
is
going
to
be
the
one
that's
going
to
have
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
applicant
meets
the
ownership
requirements
and
that's
going
to
be
something
that
will
have
to
be
determined
at
a
later
date.
B
That
is
not
for
you
to
decide
here,
but
you
do
need
to
determine
if
there's
competent,
substantial
enough
evidence
that
the
applicant
could
foreseeably
get
this
variance
that
they're
requesting
okay.
Thank.
F
Thank
you
for
that
clarification,
and
I
have
a
feeling
we
will
be
relying
on
your
expertise
as
as
we
proceed.
So
we
do
have,
as
noted,
have
received
this
november
16th
that
we
have
this
today.
E
D
You
hold
your
question,
sir,
for
one
minute
because
just
on
protocol,
I
don't
think
we
ever
got
to
ask
staff
questions
on
this
case
prior
to
you
speaking,
so
I
I
do
personally
have
questions
that
I
wanted
to
ask.
So
if
you
don't
mind,
if
I'm.
D
If
you
don't
don't
mind,
I
would
need
to
ask
staff
questions
prior
to
you,
giving
your
pres
your
presentation.
Yes,
if
that's
okay
with
you.
D
G
A
B
It
looks
like
in
2012,
so
it's
been
on
the
books
for
a
while,
I
think
maybe
this
board
has
only
ever
seen
this
one
other
time,
but
for
this
type
of
a
variance
there
are
very
specific
criteria
and
as
determined
by
the
planning
director
that
this
is
these
three
criteria
with
the
subsections
and
criteria
the
first,
a
those
are
the
only
criteria
that
you're
should
be
considering
this
evening,
not
your
regular
standard,
five
other
criteria.
Thank.
G
D
My
question
is:
what
sizes
are
these
lots.
A
D
D
And
while
you're
on
there,
you
might
as
well
see
if
you
can
find
the
length
and
the
length
and
the
width
as
well.
A
Sure,
well,
the
width
of
both
of
the
lots
are
just
about
60
feet,
wide
they're
about
the
same.
B
A
E
F
You,
yes,
please
sorry,
well
any
other
questions
from
the
board
for
the
staff
okay
see
now,
can
we
have
comments
from
the
applicant.
Please.
E
Yes
ma'am,
so
I
did
review
the
five
pages
and
to
me
there's
two
critical
points
that
I
want
to
point
out.
The
first
is
the
the
neighbor's
son
is
questioning
whether
I
own
all
blot
11.
E
So
I
went
to
the
clerk
of
county
records
and
met
with
scott
jensen,
who
is
in
charge
of
the
property
appraisal
for
this
lot,
and
I
pulled
from
the
record
two
a
warranty
deed
from
1984
and
then
the
same
day,
a
quit
claim
deed
was
filed
and
signed
by
mary
g
diamandis,
and
I
provided
that
to
the
board.
E
What
this
clearly
shows
that
originally
the
warranty
deed
showed
a
portion
of
lot
11
being
sold,
and
then
the
quitclaim
deed
was
filed
up
after
that,
showing
that
all
lot
11
was
assigned
to
the
manual
vaporez
and
and
vaporess
family.
So
what
the?
What
the
county
appraiser
office
told
me
is
since
1984,
this
has
been
taxed
at
a
buildable
lot
of
record,
and
that
was
based
on
the
it's.
The
quick
claim
d
book,
5762
page
1470,
which
I
provide
you
copies
of
that.
So
that
clearly
indicates
that
is
not
a
partial.
E
Odd
is
an
entire
lot.
So
I
wanted
to
address
that
because
that's
in
the
letter-
and
then
the
second
thing
I'd
like
to
just
address
is
a
general
statement
is.
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
the
board
to
understand
that
sophia
amagrinos
did-
and
this
was
already
documented
in
your
notes-
that
she
bought
lot
12
in
1992.
E
When
you
go
to
219
2019,
when
I
got
involved,
the
foreclosure
was
actually
only
on
lot
12
and
that
was
handled
by
a
company
called
bk
global,
and
that
was
based
on
a
reverse
mortgage
that
sofia
had
defaulted
on.
She
actually
owned
lot
of
levin,
free
and
clear.
So
when
I
inquired
on
it,
the
bankruptcy
attorney
basically
was
allowed
to
sign
away
the
the
rights
to
that
based
on
2018
and
2019
taxes
being
paid
which
had
not
been
paid.
E
So
it
was
two
separate
transactions,
two
parcels
they
were
never
combined,
even
when
I
purchased
it
in
2019..
When
you
read
through
the
four
pages.
Everything
in
that
letter
talks
about
combination
that
they
were
combined
as
a
conforming
line
and
they
were
never
combined
all
the
way
to
my
purchase
in
2019
and
those
are
two
critical
points
I
wanted
to
make
the
board
aware
of.
F
Thank
you
very
much,
sir,
and
we
may
we
appreciate
your
research
here
and
we
may
call
on
you
to
ask
some
additional
questions
and
clarification.
So
just.
F
You
know
it
is
for
everyone
you're
doing
great.
We
appreciate
that
you
are
patient
with
us
because,
as
our
you
know,
council
said
this
is
some
criteria
that
we
do
not
see
often
so
we're
going
to
proceed
with
patients
to
make
sure
everything
is
done
fairly
and
correctly.
F
So
do
we
have
anyone
else
present
that
would
like
to
speak
about
this
application
that
is
before
us.
E
J
Dowell
and
I
have
my
girlfriend
abby
coulter
with
me-
we
are
the
owners
of
lot
12
31
north
park
ave,
and
we
wanted
to
there's
a
few
things
here.
So
we
wanted
to
first
get
some
information.
B
J
J
You
bet
thank
you.
This
is
all
new
to
us
too,
so
so
bear
with
us.
Okay,
so
I
guess,
for
starters,
we're
looking
for
a
little
more
information
on
details
on
this
variance,
what
the
setbacks
entail.
J
Our
lot
is,
as
you
can
see
from
the
survey
from
the
application
is
literally
adjacent
to
lot
11.,
so
the
build
the
approval
to
build
on
this
has
some
concerns
of
ours,
notably
intrusiveness,
and
what
would
be
like
an
issue
of
privacy
if,
especially
if
the
build
is
right
up
against
our
lot
line
and
a
couple
of
things
we're
concerned
now
of
you
know
having
our
property
value
at
stake
here
with
the
with
the
build,
if
it's
a
rather
large
build
and
the
build
is
built
up
again
engulfing
our
territory
and
the
natural
aesthetic
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
street
itself,
there
isn't
houses
that
are
buddied
up
against
each
other.
J
So
it's
an
issue
of
aesthetic
as
well.
So
is
there
any
detail
you
can
provide
on
what's
the
intent
with
the
build
and
the
property
type
and
the
setbacks
are
involved,
because
one
thing
that
I'm
interested
in
is
you
know
if
there
is
any
adherence
to
the
r100
zoning
from
the
side,
setbacks
and
detail
around
that
I'd
be
really
interested
to
know
what
that
is.
F
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
I
am.
I
appreciate
that
you
have
logged
in
tonight
and
joined
us
and
taking
an
active
interest
in
this.
So
looking
to
staff
and
counsel
just
to
confirm,
we
are
providing
a
variance
for
the
applicant
to
build
correct.
We
do
not
have
and
play
it
before
us
an
application
to
build
a
certain
size
or
location
on
the
lot.
Is
that
correct.
A
Correct
there's
no
site
plan
for
the
property
right
now.
The
appliance
are
just
here
today
to
get
the
determination
whether
or
not
the
lot
is
buildable.
Originally,
there
was
a
request
for
setbacks,
but
they
did
withdraw
that
before
it
became
came
before
the
board.
I
can
speak
just
a
little
detail
about
what
the
actual
setbacks
are
for
an
r
100
district.
As
far
as
side
setbacks
go.
There
is
a
minimum
of
10
feet
required
in
this
district,
with
a
total
of
25
feet
for
both
side
yards
combined.
A
F
Okay,
and
can
you
please
let
us
know
what
the
front
and
rear
yard
setback
would
be.
F
Okay,
so
that
would,
if
you
were
to
this-
is
horrible
math
on
my
part,
maximize
the
setbacks,
the
the
the
requirements
there,
you
would
be
looking
at
no
more
than
a
35
foot
wide
house.
Am
I
correct
40.
D
Well,
you
have
your
total.
F
B
F
Okay,
so
a
35
foot
wide
house
and
my
math
skills
have
not
gotten
me
to
the
depth
of
the
prop
the
home.
I
would
say.
B
A
F
Correct
and
I
believe
the
applicant
is
going
to
provide
some
information
for
us.
E
Yes,
ma'am
I'd
like
to
explain,
I
did
request
initially
for
the
setback
variants,
but
I
was
not
aware
that
you
have
to
supply
building
plans
which
I'm
not
prepared
at
this
point
to
do
that.
So
that's
why
I
withdrew
the
variants.
I
would
like
to
point
out
also,
if
you
look
at
the
very
large
house
behind
lot,
11,
that's
just
being
constructed
on
lots.
I
believe
it's
six
and
seven.
That's
also
our
100
and
he's
only
about
five
feet
from
the
back
of
my
property,
so
a
variance
has
already
been
approved.
E
F
Okay,
all
right,
so
that's
good
to
know
that
you
know
where
you
are
in
the
process
and
just
as
we
have
been
informed,
we
cannot
look
to
what
has
happened
on
other
properties
when
we're
deciding
so
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
you
had
that
point
of
clarification,
so
just
knowing
for
the
the
gentleman
that
is
in
the
zoom.
F
Thank
you
for
your
patience
that
we
are
what's
presented
before
us
today
is
to
determine
if
this
is
a
buildable
lot,
what
the
property
owners
would
choose
to
build
would
then
have
to
go
through
the
processes,
which
would
mean
the
meeting
with
planning
and
zoning
and
etc
to
make
sure
that
they
are
complying
with
the
setbacks
that
all
other
properties
would
have
to.
If
the
property
owner
the
gentleman
in
front
of
us
determines
he
wants
to
build
a
home
that
would
not
fit
within
that
criteria.
J
F
I
F
I
A
F
Thank
you.
So
do
we
have
any
questions
of
the
applicant
from
our
board
today.
E
I
do
not
currently
the
property
is
up
for
sale
and
that's
why
I
need
just
a
buildable
lot
of
record,
because
if
it's
not
buildable,
then
I
don't
know
how
you
sell
the
lot
honestly.
So
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
get
today.
I
have
no
plans
to
build
at
this
point
in
time,
but
I
don't
know
what
I'll
say
in
the
future.
Okay.
F
E
Correct
because,
if
it's
considered
not
to
be,
then
I'd
have
to
also
go
back
and
get
all
the
taxes
changed,
because
it's
being
charged
at
a
value
of
a
buildable
lot
as
well,
too.
That's
a
different
issue.
It's
taxed,
I
believe
at
59
000
today,
based
on
the
pinellas
county
assessment
and
that's
based
on
a
full
lot.
11,
that's
buildable.
It
wouldn't
be
charged
at
that
value
if
it
wasn't
that
case
based
on
their
records.
Good
point.
Thank
you.
H
F
Do
we
have
any
questions
of
the
applicant?
I'm
gonna
try
to
jumble
this
together
of
the
applicant
of
the
the
property
owners
who
have
joined
us
via
zoom
and
our
staff
or
council.
D
D
D
So,
even
if
we
give
you
this
variance-
or
if
I
give
you
this
variance
and
I
vote
for
it
that
way,
I
don't
know
if
it's
possible
to
build
something-
that's
35
or
40
feet
like
that
on
a
property
like
that.
So
I
don't
know
I
don't
want
to
mislead
and
I
don't
want
to
get
into
you
know
future
cases,
but
on
on
our
regular
criteria.
D
E
Well,
I
I
think
I
can
answer
that
because
I
did
the
measurements
and
if
I'm
correct,
the
r100
specification
is
1200
square
feet
is
the
minimum
size
house
which
is
30
by
40
feet.
So
if
you
don't
do
any
variances,
the
setbacks,
there's
enough
room
on
that
property.
To
put
that
concrete
pad
on
there
now
is,
is
actually
larger
than
that.
E
So
there's
enough
room
to
put
a
minimum
size,
1200
square
foot
house-
I
don't
know
what
we'll
do
and
that's
another
secondary
issue,
but
there's
definitely
enough
room
to
put
a
minimum
size
house
on
on
that
lot.
If
we
choose
to
do
that,
you
can
also
you're
correct.
You
can
go
up
35
feet.
So
if
it's
1200
square
feet,
you
go
up
two
stories,
because
the
current
lot
is
is
right.
E
Now
at
11
feet
base
elevation,
so
you
don't
have
to
elevate
the
property
to
be
above
flood
zone
and
therefore
with
35
feet,
including
your
roof.
You
should
be
able
to
get
two
stories
which
would
make
it
a
2,
400
square
foot
house,
and
these
are
all
rough
numbers,
but
I
don't
know
the
answer
that,
because
I
I
was
told
I
have
to
submit
building
plans
before
we
get
to
that
next
step.
E
D
I
fully
understand-
and
you
were
agreeing
with
me-
I
just
what
I
was
trying
to
explain
to
you-
is
to
get
a
variance
on
it
once
it
becomes.
If
it
becomes
a
buildable
lot,
you
would
not
be
able
to
lean
on
to
those
setbacks.
D
F
Okay,
yeah,
I
mean
you
know
we
are
not
architects,
we're
not
builders
or
planners,
but
our
fuzzy
math
you're,
looking
at.
If
you
were
to
sell
this
lot,
which
seems
to
be
your
intention,
the
new
owners
assuming
they
were
looking
to
build
a
home,
it's
looking
35
to
50ish,
so
it's
a
modest
home
personally,
I
love
modest
size
homes,
so
just
knowing
that
your
buyers
would
have
their
eyes
wide
open,
knowing
what
they
were
buying.
F
Okay,
so
if
we
don't
have
any
other
questions
or
any
discussion
here,
if
we
would
like
to
go
forward
with
emotion.
J
This
is
jimmy
at
31
north
park.
Sorry,
I
have
one
question
and
it
might
have
been
mentioned
already,
but
what
is
the
minimum
square
foot
the
home
needs
to
be
for
an
r
100
zone.
B
E
B
To
that
to
clarify
at
this
point-
and
I
think
madam
chairwoman
did
a
good
job
of
explaining
it,
but
at
this
point
whether
or
not
that
a
home
is
going
to
be
built
on
that
or
whether
or
not
the
sale
is
contingent
on
anything,
unfortunately
or
fortunately,
that's
not
this
board's
purview,
the
only
thing
this
board
can
do
at
this
time
is
take
the
evidence
that's
been
presented
at
this
hearing,
compare
it
with
the
three
criteria
that
are
listed
in
the
code
of
ordinances
and
figure
out.
B
If
that
the
facts
and
evidence
support
the
criteria.
If
they
do,
they
are
required
to
grant
the
variance,
regardless
of
what
their
personal
feelings
are
or
if,
in
the
future,
somebody
builds
a
house
or
wants
to
come
back
for
another
variance
or
determines
that
they
can't
build
a
house
there
or
whatever.
So
that
is
the
only
thing
that
this
board
is
tasked
to
do
is
take
the
evidence
see
if
it
fits
the
criteria.
B
If
it
does,
they
have
to
grant
the
variance
if
it
doesn't,
they
cannot
grant
the
variance,
and
this
is
only
to
determine
if
the
lot
in
the
future
is
buildable
per
the
criteria
in
the
code,
not
maybe
pragmatically
or
whatever,
but
per
the
criteria
in
the
code.
I
hope
that
that
provides
some
sort
of
clarification,
because
I
don't
think
that
any
more
discussion
on
that
topic
is
going
to
be
helpful
for
this
variant.
J
F
So
mr
eisner.
D
Thank
you.
This
is
a
question
for
you,
the
attorney,
and
this
is
just
for
clarification
when
it
states
here
on
number
three.
The
lot
was
not
combined
with
a
neighboring
lot.
I
presume
they're,
referring
to
the
lot
11
and
lot
12,
not
that
it
was
common
ownership.
B
B
Do
we
have
a
second
I
have
before
I
know,
ownership
was
in
question,
I
didn't
know
if
you
wanted
to
add
the
condition
or
if
you
are
satisfied
with
that
or
if
you
had.
I
wanted
to
add
the
condition
that
was
listed
in
the
packet
that
it
be
conditioned
as
to
being
able
to
provide
proof
of
ownership
to
the
city
at
the
time
of
permitting.
F
C
D
F
E
F
B
F
G
B
E
B
So
upon
expiration
of
the
variance
if
no
building
permit
has
been
submitted
for
the
variance
expires
and
the
lot's
no
longer
buildable,
okay
or
deemed
buildable
if
building
permits
are
applied
for
at
the
time
of
permitting
whoever
the
owner
is
needs
to
provide
proof
of
ownership
of
the
entire
lot
for
lot.
11..
Okay,.
H
H
G
It's
rich
just
welcome
to
our
alternates
as
someone
who
served
in
that
second
alternate
capacity
when
I
was
starting
out,
you
know.
Congratulations
on
your
first
meeting,
I'm
sorry
it
was
a
little
unusual
case
which
was
not
our
normal
criteria,
but
still
great
to
be
a
part.
Thank
you
for
that
and
your
time
coming
to
the
meetings
I
I
do.
G
B
Well,
I
do
want
to
condition
that
with
while
the
governor
did
lift
the
executive
order,
which
suspended
in-person
quorums.
There
has
been
discussion
among
the
city
attorneys
throughout
the
state
of
florida.
What
exactly?
That
means,
as
there
are
people
who
are
technically
high
risk
and
who
are
looking
to
say,
I
want
to
appear
via
zoom
there's
been
discussion
to
say.
If,
as
long
as
you
have
a
physical
quorum,
somebody
else
could
call
in
the
recommendation
amongst
the
body
of
attorneys,
which
is
never
a
good
idea.
B
Is
that
if
you
need
to
be,
you
need
to
appear
in
person
unless
you
have
some
sort
of
extenuating
circumstances
like
a
health
concern
that
can
be
documented,
of
course,
without
violating
any
type
of
hipaa,
or
anything
like
that,
so
understanding
that
it
may
be
more
convenient
to
peer
via
zoom
and
perhaps
mr
herbowski
would
would
prefer
to
have
done
that
it
really
is
unadvisable
to
do
that
at
this
time.
But
who
knows
what
the
future
holds
so?
But
but
of
course
that
would
be
governed.
F
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
clarification
and
I
think
we
all
second
miss
rich's
sentiment
of
welcome
and
I
believe
this
board
believes
in
trial
by
fire.
So
you
had
your
fire.
F
This
was
certainly
a
unique
application
in
front
of
us,
so
thank
you
so
much
for
jumping
right
in
so,
and
welcome,
look
forward
to
working
with
you
whether
it's
in
person
zoom,
whatever
2020
and
2021
yikes,
has
before
us,
sir.
Of
course,
mr
eisner
we'd
love.
D
This
was
a
very
interesting
type
case
and
going
on
from
a
very
interesting
case,
I
would
would
like
to
recommend
that,
in
the
future
staff
lets
us
know
ahead
of
time
that
we're
not
going
to
be
following
our
own
criteria,
that
there
would
be
new
criteria
just
to
keep
us.
You
know
to
make
us
aware
when
we
get
the
paperwork
so
that
we're
more
prepared
that
we're
not
walking
in
because
the
letter
that
was
written,
the
email
refers
to
our
criteria
that
we
normally
follow.
D
So
if
the
yeah-
and
I
believe
that
the
person
who's
objecting
to
the
variance
should
also
be
made
aware
of
that,
it
falls
under
a
different
criteria
than
we're
normally
accustomed
to
as
well,
because
his
is
the
letter
that
I
was
reading
by
being
presented
moments
before
the
case,
I'm
reading
it,
anticipating
that
that
was
what
we
were
going
to
go
by
and
instead
we
were
going
by
a
completely
different
set
of
criteria.
D
So,
in
order
to
just
save
some
confusion,
if
we
can,
you
know
make
it
make
us
more
aware
of
it
in
the
beginning.
There's
also
another
thing
I
don't
know:
if
there's
a
way
of
getting
these
emails
to
us,
you
know,
so
it's
not
a
hot
potato
place.
D
You
know
that
we
are
reading
this
long
legal
type
of
document
written
by
an
attorney
and
trying
to
determine
if
it's
even
and
it
was
completely
inadmissible,
any
which
way,
because
it
was
more
so
tainted
to
our
criteria
rather
than
the
three
criteria
that
we
were
to
go
by
so.
A
Yeah
so
there's.
A
I
understood
what
I
will
say
so
typically,
we
would
provide
any
sort
of
submitted
written
materials
that
we
receive
before
we
send
out
the
packets
with
the
packets.
This
one
came
in,
I
believe,
on
monday
this
week,
so
that's
why
we
present
it
to
you
today.
A
D
Well,
you
know
yes
and
I
and
thank
you
it's
just
especially
this
was
our
fir.
You
know
first
time
back
and
you
did
a
marvelous
job
as
chair,
though
I
saw
the
little
sweat
droplets,
it
was
one
of
those
type
cases
we
have
two
alternates.
D
We
have
a
different
chair,
you
know
the
vice
chair
is
covering
for
the
chair,
so
all
in
all
it
was
just
you
know.
I
I
put
myself
in
the
position
that
these
alternates
have
been
in.
You
know
where
I
came
in
my
first
time
and
there
were
was
a
stack
of
paper
this
high
and
I
was
trying
to
read
through
it
and
I
felt
like
lucy
on
the
chocolate
factory
it
was.
I
just
couldn't
keep
up.