![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CufahIVnDjg/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments 7-28-21
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
July
28,
2021,
7
p.m,
roll
call.
C
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
where
the
board
of
adjustment
acts
in
a
quasi-judicial
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity
at
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
It
is
not
the
board's
function
to
make
law,
but
rather
to
apply
law
that
has
already
been
established
in
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
The
board
is
required
by
law
to
make
findings
of
fact,
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
applied
those
findings
of
fact
to
previous
established,
previously
established
criteria
contained
in
the
code
of
ordinances
in
order
to
make
a
legal
decision
decision
regarding
the
application
before
it.
C
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.
C
C
D
A
Okay,
so
we're
going
to
do
these
applications
since
it's
the
same
address,
I
guess
we're
going
to
do
them
together.
It's
application
number
21-62
variants
to
reduce
the
required
side
and
rear
yard
setback,
and
also
application
number
21-90
variants
from
the
floor
area,
ratio
standards
and
the
location
is
41522
u.s,
highway,
19
north.
We
go
to
the
city
for
a
presentation.
E
Okay,
so
the
property
again
is
located
off
of
us19.
It's
outlined
in
yellow
here
on
the
screen.
It's
just
north
on
cypress
street.
This
property,
as
well
as
all
surrounding
property,
is
located
within
the
hb
highway
business
zoning
district.
There
is
some
industrial
restricted
zoning
to
the
north,
which
is
the
ir.
E
As
mentioned,
this
is
comprised
of
two
applications
that
will
present
together
for
the
same
property.
The
first
application
is
application
number
21-62.
It's
a
request
to
reduce
the
minimum
rear
yard
setback.
The
requirement
is
25
feet.
The
applicants
are
proposing
a
setback
of
15
feet
and
the
second
application
number
21-90
is
a
request
to
increase
the
allowable
floor
area
ratio
or
the
far
the
maximum
allowable
far
is
.40
and
they're
requesting
a
0.43
far.
E
This
is
a
look
at
the
proposed
site
plan.
As
you
can
see,
there
is
an
existing
just
about
22
000
square
foot,
building
kind
of
in
the
center
portion
of
the
site.
There's
also
some
existing
parking
in
front
of
that
building.
They
are
proposing
the
new
building
to
be
constructed
on
the
western
portion
of
the
site
I
have
it
outlined
in.
E
The
first
request
again
is
a
reduction
in
the
rear
yard.
This
property's
primary
frontage
is
along
u.s
19.,
so
the
rear
yard
for
this
property
is
the
west
along
the
western
property
line.
It's
the
area,
that's
shaded
in
red,
the
hb
zoning
district
requires
a
minimum
rail
yard
of
25
feet
again,
they're
proposing
15
feet
for
that
setback.
E
The
applicant
indicated
that
the
reduced
setback
is
necessary
to
provide
sufficient
parking
for
the
new
structure
in
the
application.
It
does
note
that
the
use
of
the
building
is
proposed
to
be
office
and
warehouse.
However,
it
does
not
provide
the
breakdown
of
how
much
of
the
building
will
be
used
for
either
use.
So
staff
at
this
time
is
unable
to
verify
exactly
what
the
minimum
required
parking
would
be
based
off
the
land
development
code
requirements
for
your
reference,
I
provided
the
parking
requirements
from
the
land
development
code
for
office.
E
E
E
The
proposed
building
will
add
an
additional
0.10
far
so
a
total
of
0.43,
which
does
exceed
the
0.40
requirement.
As
a
reminder,
floor
area
ratio
is
based
off
of
its
calculation
of
the
total
land
area
of
the
project
area
times
a
ratio
number
in
this
case
0.4.
That
gives
you
a
maximum
allowable
square
footage.
You
can
build
on
the
site
in
this
case
they
would
be
allowed
a
maximum
of
just
over
26
000
square
feet
with
what
they
have
proposed.
E
One
thing
to
note
is
yes:
this
property
has
a
portion
of
the
site
that
is
not
developed,
but
because
the
current
building
is
below
the
minimum
floor
area
ratio,
they
could
do
an
expansion
that
was
would
fit
within
that
0.40
allowance
and
we
have
all
your
criteria.
This
is
the
require
criteria
for
the
rear,
yard,
variance
and
then
for
reference.
We
also
have
your
far
variance
criteria,
which
are
a
series
of
nine
and
then
as
a
reminder,
because
these
are
two
different
applications.
A
E
A
F
G
Good
evening,
mr
chairman
and
board
members,
my
name
is
todd
pressman
200,
second
avenue
south
number
451.
I
came
all
the
way
up
from
st
petersburg
this
evening
and
when
they
finish
that
new
construction
between
19
and
275
would
be
half
as
long
we're
happy
to
be
here
this
evening.
We're
we
appreciate
your
time
here
and
ellie's
been
great
to
work
with.
She
walked
you
through
a
lot
of
this.
I'm
gonna
walk
you
through
to
orient
orient
you
a
little
bit
better
and
then
tell
you
why
we
do
meet
the
criteria
for
variances.
G
The
main
point,
mr
chairman,
board
members,
is
that
this
is
a
retrofit
of
an
existing
site,
the
site's
existing.
It
has
finite
capacity.
We
have
to
work
around
an
existing
building,
an
existing
property
that
that
is
really
our
main
direction
here.
This
evening,
definition
of
retrofit
number
two
is
to
install
modify
parts
or
equipment
in
something
previously
manufactured
or
constructed.
That's
what
we're
doing
this
isn't
a
virgin
site
or
a
vacant
site.
G
So
the
project
site
for
tonight
that
we're
looking
at
is
the
other
half
of
the
property,
and
I
think
it's
important
also.
The
other
characteristic
is
the
surrounding
uses.
Now
the
site
is
down
small
cypress
street:
it's
not
a
commercial
really
activity.
There's
commercial
uses,
there's
also
highway
business
and
industrial
uses.
It's
mostly
an
industrial
area
because
you
have
storage
to
the
north
astro
skate
here.
This
is
the
rear
of
the
shopping
center.
G
G
And
that's
just
a
closer
look
now.
Another
important
characteristic
here
is
this:
project
site
is
just
pure
asphalt,
but
there
is
a
buffer
and
what
green
area
here
and
a
buffer
and
what
green
area
here
they're
not
on
the
property
they're
on
the
adjacent
properties,
but
it
provides
a
tremendous
buffering
between
this
use
and
the
other
uses.
G
This
is
from
us
19.
Basically,
this
is
the
front
of
the
existing
building,
another
shot
of
it
just
to
orient
you,
and
this
is
the
rear
of
the
site.
This
is
the
project
area
and
again,
as
you
can
see,
it
is
just
one
big
piece
of
asphalt:
there's
not
a
single
leaf
of
green
there's,
no
single
tree,
there's
no
even
weeds
growing
on
the
thing,
no
buffer,
no
green,
no
landscaping!
G
This
is
a
budding
to
the
north.
This
is
the
one
green
wet
area.
I
told
you
or
showed
you-
and
this
is
the
same
thing
to
the
west
where
astro
skate
is
this
area
here
extends
in
back
behind
here,
so
what's
proposed,
which
ali
pointed
out
to
you
is
again.
This
would
be
the
new
building
here
proposed.
This
will
be
the
new
parking.
G
This
would
be
the
proposed
office
and
warehouse,
and
the
parking
proposed
variance
requested
ali
walked
you
through
that.
Well,
this
would
be
a
rear
setback
on
this
setback.
25
feet
is
required,
we're
proposing
to
be
at
15
feet,
so
it's
a
10
foot
variance
it's
not
over.
In
my
opinion,
it's
not
an
overly
aggressive
variance.
G
And
then,
in
regard
to
the
footprint
which
would
be
the
far,
is
a
very
small
variance,
I
would
take
the
great
liberty
to
call
it
a
tweak.
That
would
be
my
my
word
to
use
where
0.40
is
the
maximum
we're
seeking
0.43.
So
that's
0.03
in
terms
of
the
far
the
variance
of
10
feet
saves
an
entire
row
of
parking,
which
is
this
whole
row
here.
G
G
G
G
There
we
go.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
So
in
the
proposed
variants
you
can
see
a
shadow
there.
Maybe
your
perspective.
You
can
see
it.
The
boat
fits
well,
but
when
we
have
to
expand
or
comply
with
the
required
setback
that
gets
clipped
quite
a
bit
and
really
defeats
the
function
of
the
proposed
use,
I
think,
what's
really
important
isn't
is
regard
to
the
environmental,
the
green,
the
buffering,
the
landscaping.
G
We
will
be
adding
8
845
green
square
feet
added
which
clearly,
you
can
see,
is
located
all
in
these
functions,
which
again
is
just
pure
asphalt.
So
on
the
retro
retro
project,
we
get
a
lot
of
gains
and
a
lot
of
positiveness
in
that
regard,
and,
as
I
mentioned
in
regard
to
variance
criteria,
there's
no
impact
to
the
north.
G
Of
course,
that's
storage,
that's
a
very
quiet
dead
use,
but
we
have
a
good
buffer
and
same
to
astral
skate
a
good
buffer
which
would
alleviate
any
impacts
that
the
variance
criteria
looks
at
and
then,
of
course,
as
well.
We're
providing
a
really
nice
buffer,
20
foot
three
inches
on
cyprus,
which
is
great
15
foot.
Here,
10
foot
3
in
the
rear,
so
in
summary
I'll
say
it
one
more
time
retrofit
strong
consideration
of
the
use
proposed
and
the
location
of
the
surrounding
uses.
G
That
was
a
big
part
of
what
functioned
and
directed
this
project
and
the
resulting
variances
proposed
variances
tweaks
to
allow
the
site
to
work,
which
I
think
personal
opinion
is
the
purpose
of
a
one.
One
portion
of
a
variance
allows
substantial
improvement
to
the
site
site
is
now
one
big
area,
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
green
area
and
no
impacts
on
the
variances
that
we're
aware
of
notices,
of
course,
was
set
up
by
the
city,
and
I
don't
believe,
there's
a
there
there's
only
one
gentleman
here.
G
A
A
A
So
my
question
first
for
the
city:
is
you
notified
the
surround
the
surrounding
businesses,
anybody
anything
at
all,
no
contact!
I
mean.
E
D
Related
to
that
notification,
there's
that
large
apartment
complex
right
down
cyprus
behind
astro,
skate
that
uses
cypress
as
well
were
they
within
the
500?
Well,.
E
I'll
have
to
verify
that,
would
it
go
to
the
owner
or
would
it
go
to
the.
D
E
May
have
not
gotten
a
mailed
notice
letter,
but
we
do
put
signs
on
the
property
notifying
of
the
public
hearings.
So
there
was
a
sign
on
the
property
that
states
that
there's
a
public
hearing
on
the
the
site
and
it
does
provide
some
general
information
stating
that
they
are
requesting
setback
reduction
as
well
as
a
floor
area
ratio
increase
and
it
has
contact
information
to
the
planning
department.
So
they
can
get
contact
with
us.
So
that's
how
you
kind
of
cover
both
situations,
because
not
everyone's
necessarily
going
to
notice.
A
E
No
no
far
is
very
specific
review
criteria
for
the
board,
which
are
those
nine
criteria
that
are
in
your
staff
report,
and
they
were
on
the
presentation.
A
F
I
do
and
actually
piggybacking
on
the
question
about
the
far
I
believe
ali
you
had
said
something
about
that
there
would
be
an
expansion
would
fit.
An
expansion
of
the
existing
facility
could
make
this
project
fit
within
the
0.40.
Far,
did
I
misunderstand
you,
or
could
you.
E
Clarify
that
yeah
I
can
provide
some
clarification
so
from
sas
perspective.
You
know
this.
This
site
right
now
has
an
far
of
0.33,
so
that's
0.07
less
than
what
they're
allowed
maximum
by
right.
So,
theoretically,
you
could
do
an
expansion
on
this
property.
It
may
not
be
the
size
desired
or
necessary,
potentially
for
the
use
that
they
want
to
do,
but
you
do
have
the
option
to
expand
on
the
site
with
the
allowable
far
so
that
was
staff's
perspective.
E
Right
and
what
that
kind
of
equates
to
from
what
they're
proposing
to
what
is
allowed,
it's
about
just
over
2000
square
feet
more
than
what
they're
allowed
by
right.
So
they
can
have
a
total
of
26
000
square
feet
on
site.
It
could
be
one
building,
multiple
stories,
one
story:
it
could
be
two
buildings,
just
the
total
square
footage
is
26
000
and
some
change
that
they
are
allowed
and
right
now,
they're
proposing
just
over
28
000.
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
I
Allie
you
had
also
mentioned
about
use
of
the
building,
so
it's
not
been
declared
what
it
will
be
used
for,
because
is
didn't.
You
say
that
that
would
dictate
how
much
parking
was
going
to
be
able
to
be
utilized
or
not.
E
Yes,
so
the
applicant
did
provide
that
it
would
be
used
for
office
and
warehouse
use.
He
could
probably
provide
maybe
some
more
information
on
that,
but
with
this
application
we
are
not
provided
a
breakdown
so
to
determine
parking
for
uses
a
lot
of
it's
based
off
of
square
footage
of
how
much
of
that
building
is
used
for
that
particular
use.
So,
for
example,
you
know
if
the
whole
building
was
office.
It's
going
to
need
a
lot
more
parking
required
by
the
land
development
code
as
opposed
to
a
majority
or
all
the
building
was
warehouse.
E
G
Yes,
sir,
the
definitive
breakdown
has
not
been
determined.
Part
of
that
is
going
to
be
market
demand,
so
roughly
conceptually
about
50
50
about
50
50.,
but
part
of
the
issue
is
that
we
need
to
have
a
site
and
not
to
be
the
dead
horse.
Here
we
need
to
have
a
site
that
we
will
be
able
to
accommodate
if
we
go
75
25
or
something
in
that
manner.
G
A
G
We
actually
had
a
lot
of
discussions
with
staff
and
it
kind
of
varied
very,
but
it
altered
as
to
which
setbacks.
We
were
asking
so
to
clarify
that,
for
you.
G
We're
asking
for
one
setback:
variance
on
the
astro
state
side,
which
is
the
west
side,
so
looking
at
an
aerial
or
looking
at
okay.
That
would
be
good.
So
the
the
setback
variance
is
here
where
25
feet
is
required,
we're
requesting
and
asking
for
15
feet
to
exist.
So
it's
a
10
foot
variance
which
is
up
against
these
buffer
areas,
which
is
on
the
other
property.
H
G
So,
sir,
if
I
may
go
back
a
step
so
from
the
date
of
application
in
terms
of
conversations
with
the
city
staff,
we
are
directed
to
ask
for
those
variances
after
they
are
filed
and
they
reviewed
them.
The
application
request
changed
to
a
single
setback,
variance
which
is
on
the
west
side
and
ellie.
I
believe,
that's
officially
a
rear.
G
E
About
the
setbacks,
so
yes,
the
application
originally
was
believed
that
they
needed
a
setback
variants
for
the
side.
After
reviewing
the
application,
there
was
some
clarification
that
needed
to
be.
You
know,
what's
the
side,
what's
the
rear,
what's
the
front
of
the
property,
so
technically
they
believed
the
rear
was
the
north
property
line,
but
by
zoning
definition,
that's
actually
a
side,
so
they
did
meet
the
side
requirements
so
that
resulted
in
only
needing
a
rear
yard
variance.
H
On
that
note,
yes,
sir,
on
page,
two
of
the
variance,
I
believe,
is
your
variance
while
you're
requesting
the
variance-
and
it
says
here-
front
yard
setback
required
at
30
seeking
9.9.
H
G
Yes,
sir,
those
changed
over
time
from
the
date
that
we
filed
in
working
with
the
staff
as
to
what
variances
were
required
in
discussion
with
staff
and,
as
ali
said
in
their
review
as
well.
Those
variances
that
were
needed
differed
and
changed.
So
the
only
variance
before
you
today,
as
a
result
of
those
reviews,
is
the
rear
setback.
Only
as
I
just
showed
you,
there.
G
H
G
H
I
Sir,
we
would
love
for
you
to
come
into
town
and
build
whatever
it
is.
That
would
help
commerce,
but
where
I
have
an
issue
is
in
your
definition
of
retrofit.
I
My
definition
of
a
retrofit
is
to
take
what
we
do
have
and
to
work
with
what
we
do
have
not
to
redesign
it
and,
as
I'm
reading,
through
the
criteria
that
we
have
to
follow,
the
only
one
that
you
seem
to
be
able
to
pass
is
number
five,
so
one
throw
four
is
the
ones
that
I
have
all
issues
with,
or
I
should
say
possibly,
you
guys
have
the
issues
with.
So
how
can
you
have
those
met?
Well,
because
we
really
didn't
discuss
that.
G
Well,
let's
look
at
criteria
by
criteria.
If
I
may,
I'm
sure
criteria,
number
one
is
the
need
for
request
to
variance
arises
out
of
the
physical
surrounding
shape,
topographical
conditions
or
other
physical
environmental
conditions
that
are
unique
to
the
specific
property
involved
which
do
not
apply
generally
to
property
in
the
same
zoning
district.
G
Do
you
have
a
physical
hardship
that
prevents
you
from
meeting
the
requirements
of
the
code?
So
what
we
presented
to
you
is
a,
in
our
opinion,
a
very
strong
and
bona
fide
criteria,
response
which
is
that
to
develop
this
site
in
the
same
capacity
and
at
par
with
surrounding
uses
which
are
storage
or
quiet
or
rear
of
a
shopping
center,
in
order
to
make
it
work
on
an
existing
site
that
has
an
existing
building.
That
has
a
finite
size
that
has
to
meet
access
points
and
buffering
and
other
city
requirements.
I
But
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
property
itself
you're
trying
to
fit,
in
my
opinion,
and
through
a
choice
of
good
words,
you're
trying
to
fit
a
square
peg
in
a
round
hole
it
just
doesn't
it
may
not
make
it
for
what
you're
trying
to
do.
I
G
Well,
the
need
is,
as
I
one
of
the
main
thrusts
I
presented
to
you
with
all
due
respect,
and
I
understand
your
concerns.
I
understand
what
you're
voicing,
but
the
use
is
driven
by
the
surrounding
uses.
I
mean
we're
not
going
to
put
a
twisty
freeze
there,
because
it
doesn't
get
any
continued
commercial
traffic,
we're
not
going
to
put
a
711
there
because
it
would
be
lost,
so
your
uses
are
then
defined
as
quieter
storage
type
uses
or
industrial
type
uses,
so
the
site
is
forced
into
that
kind
of
use.
G
G
We
have
to
include
as
much
buffering
as
we
can
we're
not
asking
for
a
single
variance
well
we're
asking
for
only
a
small
reduction
of
the
green
on
the
rear,
but
on
the
other
sides
we're
adding
tremendous
and
having
to
cope
with
adding
tremendous
buffering
where
there
is
none.
So
the
compilation
of
all
those
elements
is
unique
is
singular,
does
cause
difficulties
and
can
your
test,
sir,
is
compare
that
to
a
vacant
site
of
the
same
size?
We
could
do
exactly
what
we
need
to
do
if
this
were
a
vacant
virgin
site.
I
G
G
It
is
developed
like
every
other
property
in
the
entire
city
of
safe
of
of
tarpon
springs
per
the
code
allowances,
so
those
actions
were
permissible
and
allowable
now,
there's
a
and
it
was
developed
in
the
rear,
as
well
as
overflow
parking
or
some
type
of
additional
parking.
So
those
actions
are
the
same
as
any
other
property
that
you,
this
board
has
looked
at,
or
variants
have
looked
at
where
there's
been
development.
Nothing
no
different.
G
So
in
that
regard,
in
terms
of
these
special
circumstances
and
peculiar
to
the
property
which
I
explained
in
item
number,
one
also
continue
that
they're
not
self-created
or
resulted
from
an
action
by
the
applicant,
because
the
property
has
been
developed
per
standards
for
construction.
Zoning,
like
every
other
property
in
the
city
of
tarpon,
springs
that
are
coming
in,
to
make
changes
or
to
make
additions
or
to
make
things
better.
But
you're
building.
I
But
you're
making
a
structure,
so
you
I'm
just
speaking
as
you.
The
applicant
is
creating
this
issue.
G
G
Well,
that's
a
good
point
on
the
surface,
with
all
due
respect,
sir.
That
would
be.
That
would
be
a
perspective
again
of
any
variance,
because
any
variance
coming
through
for
you
could
always
or
any
project
could
be
made
smaller
any
project
could
pull
back
any
project
could
reduce
what
they're
asking
isn't
that
the
case
right?
That's.
G
Exactly
that's
exactly
correct,
sir.
So,
with
all
due
respect
to
you,
any
applicant
that
comes
forward
can
certainly
change
their
application
to
either
get
away
from
variance
or
make
it
a
minimum
variance.
In
our
case,
we
have
done
the
best
that
we
can
to
ask
for
the
minimum
variance
and
that's
the
critical
factor.
G
So
your
points
are,
with
all
due
respect
and
not
to
get
into
debate
function
with
you
at
all.
I
think
you're
bringing
up
great
points,
and,
quite
frankly,
I,
like
I,
like
the
debate
with
you,
is
that
the
actions
of
an
applicant
bringing
application
forward
for
a
change
on
a
property
does
not
qualify
under
item
number
two
as
a
very
it
does
not
apply
to
criteria
number
two.
I
No,
there
are
specific
reasons
for
us:
accepting
a
smaller
setback,
a
smaller
build
and
then
again,
I've
sat
here.
Six
years,
we've
also
accepted
variances
when
there
is
a
real
issue,
where
there's
nothing
else.
That
can
be
done
right
here
and
right
now,
in
my
opinion,
from
what
I'm
seeing
and
with
the
criteria
that
I'm
I'm
faced
with,
I
I
respect
your
response
to
number
one.
I
I
don't
agree
with
it
and
I
respect
your
response
to
number
two
and
I
don't
agree
with
it
and
if
you'd
like,
I
can
go
through
three
and
four
as
well
and
I'm
sure
you're
going
to
have
a
very
good
response
to
me.
But
you
have
to
convince
me
at
least
that
there
is
nothing
else
that
you
can
do
to
change
these
numbers,
and
you
know
just
using
a
word.
Retrofit
is
not
the
answer.
I
And
regulations
that
we
have
to
go,
I
would
just
want
to
let
you
know
this
is
just
off,
people
will
come
before
us
and
they
want
to
build
a
shed,
and
the
shed
is
too
large
for
the
property,
and
we
just
can't
decide
that
we're
going
to
give
you
a
shed.
That's
you
know
x,
amount
to
size
just
because
that
may
be
what
you
need.
G
I
would
also
suggest
concentrating
on
what's
occurring
here.
What's
occurring,
here
is
a
site
that
is
pure
asphalt
and
I
won't
be
the
dead
horse,
we're
bringing
it
up
to
a
beautiful
compliance
that
takes
a
lot
of
the
property
away
with
a
20-foot
buffer
in
the
front,
a
by
memory
10-foot
buffer
in
the
north
that
doesn't
exist
environmentally
and
beautifully
and
taking
a
site
that
is
just
a
pay
parking
lot
and
making
it
work,
improving
it
and
adding
a
good
commercial
use
on
the
property.
I
G
The
best
answer
I
can
give
you,
sir,
is
that
it's
driven
by
the
surrounding
uses
and
its
location,
which
is
a
difficult
location
and
calls
for
certain
uses.
That's
why
the
applicants
come
forward
with
the
use
proposed,
as
I
explained,
other
examples
of
uses
that
could
go
there
that
drives
this
application.
I
I
It's
too
small
and
you're
trying
to
have
us
break
our
rules
in
in
in
trying
to
explain
that
it
doesn't
fit
your
needs,
I'm
agreeing
with
you.
G
G
Personally,
I
would
call
that
the
minimus
that's
compared
to
analogy
that
you
well
submitted
of
an
airport
now
clearly
an
airport's,
not
a
goal.
You're
not
going
to
go
here,
but
what's
proposed
in
our
opinion,
is
diminutive
and
it
doesn't
give
any
special
privilege
to
anyone
as
variance
item
number
four
proposes
and
certainly
doesn't
diminish
property
values.
In
fact
it
would
be
the
opposite.
Would
increase
property
values
and
variance
criteria?
Number
number
five.
I
G
The
only
thing
I
would
say
in
closing,
sir,
and
I
appreciate
I
really
do
appreciate
your
comments.
You've
obviously
looked
at
this
very
closely.
Obviously
we
disagree.
I,
I
don't
think
I'm
going
to
change
your
mind,
so
we
have
to
wait
for
the
other
members
and
we
hope
we
have
your
support,
but
an
analogy
of
placing
something
like
an
airport
on
this
property
is
far
away
light
years
away
from
what
we're
proposing.
I
think
that
actually
illustrates
part
of
the
reason
why
variance
is
supportable.
I
That's
a
lot,
so
you
know
by
you
saying
that
you
only
need
point
0.3.03,
it's
2
000
square
feet
when
you
do
the
math,
so
it's
not
a
small
amount.
You
can
you're
going
to
have
to
take
that
from
somewhere,
whether
whether
you're
sacrificing
some
parking
spot
and
moving
it
forward
away
from
the
the
other
property,
or
you
know
something
that
you're
going
to
have
to
do.
But
all
four
of
these
five
you're
not
hitting
well.
G
I
I
think
the
the
important
factor
is
that
the
setback
variance
abuts
up
to
a
20
or
25
foot
buffer
area.
That's
a
that's
a
critical
consideration,
as
I
showed
you.
I
Yes-
and
we
realized
that.
G
H
G
F
Off
you,
mr
burris,
doing
a
bit
of
math
here
you
know,
as
was
pointed
out,
you
know,
office
use
it's
four
and
a
half
spaces
per
1000
square
feet
versus
the
warehouse,
which
is
one
space
for
1500
square
feet.
So
I
think
this
may
really
benefit
you
and
could
help
us
as
well
get
a
better
picture
of
what's
going
on.
G
That
would
be
wondrous,
we'd
love
to
have
it
too,
but
at
this
point
it's
impossible
to
say
one
thing
about
these
type
of
structures
as
I've.
Seen
personally
is
that
they
can
modify
over
time.
You
know
you
move
a
wall,
push
a
wall,
but,
as
I've
indicated,
the
bigger
demand
here
is
for
storage
per
the
location
and
per
for
what
the
applicant
has
felt
in
the
market.
So
we
do
expect,
as
I
said,
probably
75.25-
for
storage.
F
And
I
appreciate
that,
and
I
respect
that
and
the
problem
is
we
can't
vote
one
way
or
the
other
on
a
variance
based
on
the
speculation
or
hopes,
or
you
know,
thoughts
which
I
agree
with
your
thoughts.
It
probably
would
be
more
warehouse
versus
office
since
we're
working
in
virtual
environments
a
lot
more
these
days.
F
I
see
people
needing
to
store
things
as
opposed
to
have
office
space,
but
we
just
don't
have
the
facts
in
front
of
us
and
unfortunately-
and
I
feel
for
you-
you
know
you
don't
have
the
ability
at
this
point
to
present
that
information
and,
as
mr
burroughs
said,
the
really
good
question
about
you
know.
Is
it
lukan's
liquors
the
store,
that's
in
front
right,
so
I
guess
we
would
need
to
know.
Maybe
the
engineer
has
that
those
numbers,
what
is
their
parking
requirement?
How
many
spaces
do
they
need?
F
A
Please
take
your
time
chris
and
perhaps
ali.
Could
you
answer
her
question
about
lucan's?
How
many
spots
do
they
need.
E
So
what
I
I
can
do
is
tell
you
what
the
requirement
is
in
the
la
development
code.
I
can't
tell
you
exactly
the
numbers,
because
I
don't
have
the
sizes
of
the
retail
space,
but
for
just
a
general
retail
sales
establishment,
so
a
commercial
use
you're
required
one
space
for
250
square
feet
of
gross
floor
area
and
then,
as
far
as
parking
goes
as
well.
E
If
this
project
were
to
move
forward,
they
would
have
to
go
through
a
site
plan
approval
process
and
that's
when
parking
would
be
100
solidified
as
to
what
they're
required
to
make
sure
that
they
met.
So
they
would
have
to
provide
more
definitive
answers
as
to
percentages
and
whatnot.
So
it
does
get
verified
if
it
moves
on
beyond
this
this
place.
E
J
G
Yes,
so
what
aaron
has
indicated
is
that
they
are
completely
parked
in
the
front
and
actually
two
spaces
would
be
required
in
the
rear
per
what
the
current
uses
in
front,
but
one
other
thing
aaron
may
be
aware
of
it.
Maybe
ali
can
respond.
Is
that
where
we
have
the
understanding
there
is
a
office
warehouse
parking
rate,
which
is
a
rate
that
looks
at
both
office
and
warehouse,
which
is
one
pay
one
space
per
650
square
feet,
so
that
ties
in
well
with
the
use,
that's
proposed
and
may
help
answer
your
questions.
Miss
thank.
F
H
G
C
G
H
Okay,
on
page
two
of
your
analysis
for
the
the
request
for
the
variance
yes,
sir,
you
say
item
one
highlighted:
the
site
is
severely
constrained
and
so
on
so
forth,
in
order
to
provide
minimal
access
truck
turning
radius.
H
G
H
I
G
A
D
That
you
say
is
you
need
to
know
the
criteria
you
know
before
you
go
to
present
to
the
board
and
I'm
I'm
really
struggling
with
your
response
to
even
the
first
about
the
property
location,
because
when
you're
talking
about
the
physical
property,
it's
talking
about
things
like
large
tree
or
you
know,
slope
of
the
land.
It's
not
talking
about
the
use
or
the
desired,
so
I'm
just
I.
I
find
it
interesting
that
you're
not
following
your
own
advice
that
you
give
to
people
so
I'll.
Let
him
continue
well.
G
May
I
respond
just
in
short.
First
of
all,
I
appreciate
the
compliment.
Thank
you
very
much.
That's
very
nice.
I
would
say,
with
all
due
respect
that
I
answered,
we
went
through
the
first
set
of
criteria
with
the
gentleman
at
the
end.
I
thought
that
we
did
address.
G
G
Item
number
two
is
that
the
alleged
hardship
is
unique
and
singular
with
regard
to
the
property
of
which
the
variants
have
sought.
It's
not
suffering
in
common.
This
is
a
site
that
we
are
seeking
to
develop
after
there's
a
large
existing
use,
and
we
have
to
work
around
that,
plus
all
the
codes
and
requirements
the
city
requires
item
number
three
is
alleged.
Hardship
is
not
self-imposed
by
applicant.
G
I
think
I
did
respond
to
that
to
the
gentleman
at
the
end,
although
we
didn't
agree
which
that
the
site
is
existing,
we
had
to
work
in
in
between
those
confines
those
difficulties
and
the
new
codes
and
requirements.
Item.
Four's
adjustment
will
not
substantially
interfere
with
the
range
of
the
rights
or
others.
I
think
that's
certainly
the
case.
We've
had
no
one
come
forward
today,
there's
a
lot
of
buffering
between
the
uses.
I
don't
think
that's
been
contested
by
with
great
respect.
I
don't
think
that's
been
contested
by
board
members
item
number
five.
G
The
adjustment
law
would
be
in
harmony,
west
serves
as
a
general
intent
purpose
and
consistent
of
the
flu
and
comp
plan.
I
think
that's
the
case,
certainly
and
that
this
is
a
site
that
is
located
in
a
unusual
in
a
little
bit
of
an
unusual
location
in
terms
of
what
needs
to
occur
on
it
by
market
demands
and
what's
proposed,
does
meet
the
the
use
means
the
intent
and
purpose
of
the
codes
and
the
flu,
and
that
what
we're
requesting
is
the
minimus
to
make
those
work.
G
The
use
is
what's
proposed
and
the
issues
before
you
are
two
elements
that
do
make
it
work
again
in
regard
to
the
confines
of
the
property
and,
what's
existing
on
the
property
number
six,
the
adjustment
of
allow
will
be
the
minimum
adjustment.
I
think
that
has
been
clear.
We
are
asking
for
the
minimum
of
the
site
on
both
issues,
as
has
been
designed
by
our
civil
engineer.
Seven,
the
adjustment
lab
will
not
confirm
on
the
applicant
any
special
privilege
that
denied
the
flu
or
the
comp
plan
or
regulations.
G
I
think
that's
certainly
the
case
to
the
public.
It
would
appear
like
any
other
commercial
or
industrial
type.
Building
there'd
be
nothing,
certainly
that
would
be
applied
to
it.
That
would
be
outrageously
different
than
and
what
anyone
else
could
do
on
their
property,
particularly
if
their
property
like
this
has
already
developed.
G
Seven,
I
just
read:
eight:
the
adjustment
allowed
will
not
constitut
will
not
constitute
an
amendment
to
the
city's
comp
plan.
That's
certainly
the
case
are
certainly
not
the
case.
Number
nine,
an
amendment
to
another
land
use
category
in
the
city
and
county
white
food.
Super
land
plan
has
been
considered
by
the
applicant
and
the
city
if
it's
been
determined,
such
amendment
would
not
meet
the
objective
of
the
adjustment
which,
which
is
the
case
here.
A
I
G
We'd
love
to
have
your
support
as
a
parent
that
we
don't.
I
can
only
say
to
you
that
we
we
appreciate
your
time
and
patience
tonight.
We
appreciate
your
consideration
and
we
do
feel
very
strongly.
We
meet
all
the
criteria.
I
Well,
I
wish
you
gave
a
better
presentation
to
make
me
agree
with
you.
I
don't
I
just
thank
you
for
it.
It's
I
didn't
agree
with
the
first
one
through
four,
and
I
could
maybe
give
you
a
couple
on
this
particular
you
know
one
of
nine
two
of
nine,
but
for
the
most
part,
I'm
not
agreeing
with
your
definition
of
what
this
criteria
is.
F
I
do
appreciate
you
coming
out
here
and
I
always
love
to
see
positive
development
that
could
enhance
our
city.
Unfortunately,
I
do
share
many
of
the
same
sentiments
as
my
fellow
board
members,
as
miss
rich
said
you
know,
are
we
are
constrained
by
the
criteria?
This
is
you
know
what
is
said
in
our
code,
codes
and
ordinances,
and
you
know
set
under
law
here.
So
when
we're
looking
at
that,
the
need
for
these
variants
is
the
heart
of
it
is
that
these
are
things
that
are
beyond
your
control.
As
miss
richard
said.
F
Is
there
a
serious
slope?
Is
there
a
200
year
old
oak
tree
in
the
middle
of
a
piece
of
property?
Is
it
a
very
oddly
pie
shaped
lot
these?
These
are
the
conditions
that
we're
looking
at
we've
been
faced
with
challenging
situations
on
this
board
many
times
where
we're
seeing
great
projects
which
could
enhance
our
community
and
we
want
as
residents,
but
we
have
to
abide
by
this
criteria.
F
A
Rich
anything,
so
I
guess
there's
no
need
for
any
sort
of
rebuttal,
since
there
was
no
other
presentation,
we
do
have
two
in
front
of
us.
A
A
A
C
Well,
we
do
have
a
motion
in
a
second
on
the
table.
The
public
hearing
has
been
closed.
There
was
a
call
for
public
comment
at
that
time
and
nobody's
raised
their
hand.
Is
he
with
your
organization
or
is
he
so?
You
are
then
part
of
the
applicant,
so
we,
the
time
for
the
presentation,
has
come
and
gone.
I
defer
to
the
chairman,
but
there
is
a
motion
and
a
second
on.
J
J
A
J
A
You
know
just
for
the
record.
I
have
no
problem
with
this
application
and
I
had
pretty
flexible.
You
know.
Do
a
lot
of
yoga
a
lot
of
stretching.
I
like
the
spin
that
the
gentleman
gave
on
each
criteria
quite
well
done.
However,
we're
going
for
roll
call.
H
B
H
A
A
A
F
Meeting
minutes.