►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments January 27, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
C
D
E
G
F
F
D
Oh
well,
that's
lovely!
Thank
you.
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
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.
D
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
defined
in
favor
of
the
applicant.
D
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.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
board
wishing
disclosing
ex
parte
communications
or
conflicts
conflicts
of
interest
this
evening?
D
E
D
D
F
F
E
I
The
subject
property
is
outlined
here
in
yellow
on
the
screen.
It
is
zoned
rm,
which
is
residential
multifamily
majority
of
the
surrounding
zoning
is
also
rm,
but
there
is
some
general
business
to
the
north
and
then
just
to
the
east
is
the
sap,
which
is
our
special
area
plan
district.
I
I
I
This
is
a
look
at
the
existing
lot
layout.
There
are
three
structures
on
the
property:
there
is
an
existing
single-family
residence,
which
is
a
light
blue
shape
on
the
screen
towards
the
front
of
the
property.
There
is
an
existing
detached
garage,
which
is
the
dark
blue
square
on
the
screen,
and
then
there
is
a
building
behind
the
garage
which
is
where
there
are
two
additional
dwelling
units.
I
So,
although
this
is
not
set
up
like
a
typical
multi-family
property,
because
there
are
a
total
of
three
units
on
the
property,
that's
why
we
consider
it
multi-family
use
again.
The
applicants
are
proposing
an
addition
onto
the
back
side
of
the
existing
single-family
structure.
They
are
proposing
the
side
setback
to
match
the
existing
structures,
setback,
which
is
six
feet
from
the
east
property
line,
and
then
they're
also
proposing
to
attach
a
new
carport
to
the
front
of
the
existing
garage.
I
It
again
will
match
the
existing
setback
of
the
garage
and
it's
approximately
eight
feet
from
the
west
property
line.
As
I
mentioned,
this
property
is
considered
multi-family
use
in
the
rm
zoning
district.
There
are
different
side
setback
standards
depending
on
the
use
of
the
property
so
for
multi-family
use.
That's
where
the
20-foot
side
setback
minimum
comes
into
play
for
comparison
for
a
single
family
use
in
the
same
zoning
district.
The
side
setback
is
only
five
feet.
I
This
property
is
also
located
within
our
historic
district
and
also
the
single-family
residence
is
considered
a
contributing
structure
according
to
the
florida
master
site
file.
This
the
proposed
modifications
to
the
site
went
to
the
historic
preservation
board
back
in
october
for
review.
I
The
board
is
required
to
consider
some
historic
guidelines
when
looking
at
applications
and
modifications
to
historic
properties.
The
three
here
that
I
have
shown
on
the
screen
are
pertinent
to
this
application,
and
those
are
the
height
and
width
of
any
proposed
alteration
or
new
construction
shall
be
consistent
with
that
of
adjacent
contributing
structures.
I
I
I
This
is
just
an
overview
of
your
review
standards
and,
with
that
I'd,
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Yes,
thank
you,
the
sap,
the
special
area
district
that
you're
saying
was
just
to
the
east,
I'm
assuming.
That
is
the
area
that
is
shaded
in
gray
on
the
image
here
you
the
color,
that
one.
Yes,
that's.
J
I
This
is
a
special
area
of
the
of
our
downtown
tarpon
springs.
It
really
encompasses
downtown
the
community
redevelopment
area
as
well
as
the
sponge
docks.
That
area
has
a
special
set
of
essentially
zoning
standards.
It
falls
underneath
our
regulations
of
the
smart
code,
so
it
has.
It
follows
some
different
development
standards
than
typical
zoning
districts
do
elsewhere
in
the
city.
B
But
there
still
is
like
one
little
property
just
to
the
east
of
the
applicant
property,
that's
still
in
the
multi-family
uh-huh.
Yes,
thank
you
for
that
clarification
and-
and
I
had
another
question-
and
I
have
a
feeling
my
fellow
board
members
may
be
curious
about
this,
so
it
was
actually
on
the
other
colorful
picture
that
you
had.
That
was
the
floor
plan
of
if
you
wanted
to
that
one.
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
where
the
multi-family
has
a
20-foot
minimum
setback,
but
the
single
family
only
has
a
five.
So
if
this
was
which,
of
course,
this
isn't,
I
understand
the
rationale
why
it's
considered
a
multi-family
with
that
two
unit,
I
guess
you'd
call
it
an
in-law
suite
or
you
know,
unit
back
in
the
corner.
What
what
is
the
rationale
for
such
a
difference
of
the
setbacks
of
a
20-foot
versus
a
5-foot.
I
So,
typically
with
multi-family
there's
an
expectation
that
there's
a
greater
impact
to
surrounding
properties.
You
may
have
more
parking,
there
might
be
larger
buildings
on
the
site,
so
the
additional
setback,
because
there
are
allowances
for
single
family
in
that
district,
it
just
provides
additional
buffer
between
properties.
I
A
You
so
my
question
is
this
case
exactly
points
to
seeing
it's
a
multi-um
family.
There
is
what
it
looks
like
a
lot
on
this
property,
as
is
isn't
there.
I
So
there,
the
three
there
are
if
you're,
gonna
move
this
away
from
here.
The
shapes
that
I've
drawn
here,
the
light
blue,
the
dark,
blue
and
the
the
yellow
color.
Those
are
the
existing
structures
on
the
property.
A
A
I
They
don't
necessarily
have
purview
over
setbacks,
so
what
they
did
is
they
looked
at
this
application
in
comparison
to
those
guidelines
to
make
their
decision
the
zoning
typically
for
those
types
of
approvals,
those
as
a
condition,
that's
added
to
it.
So
if
there's
anything
that
they
can't
meet
in
the
zoning
district,
that's
what
then
brings
it
before
you
guys
today.
A
So,
in
other
words,
just
because
it
was
presented
as
it
was
approved
and
the
way
I'm
reading
it,
it's
not
really
approved.
It's
approved.
A
Allowing
us
to
do
more
of
an
approval
than
just
their
approval
is
more
cosmetic,
is
what
I'm
trying
to
say.
Ours
is
more
for
setback.
My
other
question
that
I
have
is
for
the
extension
of
the
the
carport.
I
I
would
defer
to
the
applicant
to
describe
how
that's
constructed
the
historic
preservation
board.
One
of
their
reasons
behind
the
carport
being
compatible
with
the
historic
guidelines
was
that
it
was
to
remain
open
and
not
enclosed,
but
it
was
going
to
be
attached
from
what
we
understand
to
the
building.
So
I
would
defer
the
applicant.
K
B
K
B
F
K
D
F
K
F
No
vice
chair
any
questions.
B
I
I
know
I
probably
not
about
the
carport
itself,
how
is
and
and
and
I'm
assuming
that
you
know,
I'm
seeing
the
two
units
in
the
back-
you
know
which,
which
seem
relatively
compact,
probably
about
a
little
under
500
square
feet
per
unit.
Is
this
carport?
This
is
where
we're
looking
to
have
some
parking
for
your
tenants.
K
No
actually
the
tenants
park
on
the
street.
It
was
just
to
provide
some
shade
in
the
driveway.
B
F
A
A
Has
that
the
literal
enforcement
of
the
requirements
of
the
city
of
tarpon
springs,
comprehensive
land
development
code
would
have
the
effect
of
denying
the
applicant
of
reasonable
use
of
the
property.
So
the
it's
it's
hard
for
me
to
go
ahead
and
pass
a
variance
because
you
have
reasonable
use
of
the
property.
You
have
a
house
there.
You
have
a
garage
there.
You
have
a
two
unit.
So
how
can
I
get
past
number
three
to
pass
a
variance
when
right
now
you
have
reasonable
use
of
the.
K
F
B
So-
and
maybe
this
is
a
question-
maybe
for
our
council,
because
the
applicant
bringing
up
that
you
know
it's
a
double
lot
since
you
know
the
same
property
owner,
you
know,
since
the
same
applicant
owns
both
properties,
it's
being
held
to
the
multi-family
use
with
that
20-foot
setback.
B
D
F
So
perhaps
the
city
staff
could
enlighten.
This
is
how
they
considered
number
three
condition
being
met.
I
Sure
so
staff
was
this
of
the
opinion
that
the
criteria
is
met
within
this
specific
language
of
the
decision
criteria.
It
talks
about
presence
within
a
historic
district
or
having
historic
structures
on
a
property
is
considered
a
special
or
a
unique
condition
for
a
property,
typically
for
historic
properties.
It's
challenging
for
them
to
meet
modern
day
setbacks.
I
There's
also,
you
know,
guidelines
for
historic
structures
when
they
make
alterations.
That
requires
additions
to
be
to
the
rear
structures,
as
well
as
meet
the
full
width
of
structures.
So
those
are
all
considerations
that
we
took
in
from
the
staff's
perspective
for
that
criteria.
A
I
So
there
is
in
the
lane
development.
The
criteria-
that's
in
your
staff
report
is
a
condensed
version
of
the
criteria.
There
are
some
sub
points
specific
to
criteria,
one
that
talks
about
historic
property
is
language,
and
I
can
find
that
language
for
you
and
read
you
this.
Actually,
I
think
I
used
it
in
the
staff
report.
D
I
was
gonna
say
I
have
it
here:
okay,
perfect
215.00,
subsection
b,
one.
D
B
says
that
so
the
board
of
adjustments
shall
grant
no
variance
unless
all
the
following
standards
are
met
and
are
proven
by
competent,
substantial
evidence.
One
is
the
need
for
the
requested
variance,
arises
of
the
physical
surroundings,
etc.
Subsection
b,
says
location
of
the
property
in
the
historic
district
within
the
city
may
also
be
considered
as
a
unique
physical
condition.
D
However,
any
variance
applied
for
when,
when
the
historic
district
within
the
historic
district
shall
be
found
to
be
compatible
with
the
character
of
the
properties
within
that
district
before
any
variants
may
be
granted,
and
that
is
why
I
believe
why
and
I'll
defer
to
ali
on
this
with
in
the
staff
report.
There
are
those
recommendations
from
the
historic
preservation
board
as
to
why
they
said
that
the
the
edition
had
to
be
in
the
back
of
the
property
and
that
kind
of
thing
so.
K
No,
oh
yeah.
I'm
sorry.
D
And
mr
chairman,
if
I
might
please
to
the
vice
chair's
point
earlier
with
the
hypothetical,
with
regard
to
the
double
lot
versus
the
single
lot,
I
would
also
just
add,
when
you're
talking
about
reasonable
use
of
the
property
to
mr
eisner's
point,
it
would
be
reasonable
use
of
the
property
and
similar
properties
within
the
historic
district.
So
you
would
be
looking
at
literal
enforcement
for
multi-family
homes
within
the
historic
preservation
district.
F
No
okay,
anybody
online
or
in
the
audience
that
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item
if
you're
online.
Please
raise
your
hand
at
this
time.
Mr
jump.
Anybody.
M
F
Bucs,
okay,
so
now
we're
going
to
application
20-158
variants
to
increase
the
maximum
fence
height
location
rose
street
lane
go
to
the
staff
report.
Please.
I
Again,
okay,
this
property
is
located
off
of
rose
tree
lane
again,
it's
outlined
here
in
yellow
this
property,
as
well
as
all
surrounding
property,
is
located
within
the
r-100
zoning
district,
which
is
a
single-family
residential
district.
I
Again,
the
applicants
are
here
today
requesting
a
variance
to
allow
a
fence
to
be
a
total
of
eight
feet
in
height
within
residential
districts.
The
land
development
code
restricts
the
maximum
height
to
be
only
six
feet.
They
are
proposing
to
add
a
two-foot
extension
onto
the
top
of
an
exis,
an
existing
fence,
that's
located
on
the
rear
property
line.
I
This
is
a
closer
look
at
the
property.
There's
a
single-family
residence
built
on
the
property
right
now.
The
fence
again
is
only
along
the
rear
property
line,
which
is
the
blue
line
here
on
the
screen,
there
is
a
10
foot,
wide
drainage,
easement
along
the
rear
of
the
property,
as
well
as
a
portion
of
a
50
foot,
wide
drainage
easement
to
the
west
side
of
the
property.
I
At
the
time
this
house
was
constructed,
which
was
back
in
2017.
They
were
required
to
fill
and
elevate
the
property
in
order
to
address
some
existing
drainage
and
stormwater
issues
on
the
property
as
well
as
surrounding
properties.
So
this
property
sits
approximately
two
feet
higher
than
some
surrounding
properties
or
I'm
sorry,
it's
just
under
five
feet.
Higher
than
surrounding
properties.
I
I
B
Thank
you
are
there,
so
you
said
that
there
was
a
fence
behind
those
trees.
Thank
you
for
clarifying
that,
because
we
wouldn't
have
known
from
these
images.
So
with
that,
are
there
any
fences
on
the
sides
of
the
property
currently.
I
L
We
were
handed
the
email.
Can
I
ask
a
question
about
that
at
this
point
to
you
or.
L
In
there
was
a
front
and
back
and
on
one
of
the
sides
it
talked
about
that
the
person
thought
there
was
a
10-foot
fence
already
and
then
it
was
clarified
later
noah's.
Already.
Eight
is
the
eight
foot
fence
that
were
being
asked
for
a
variance
currently
an
eight-foot
fence,
so.
I
From
what
I
understand
there,
the
fence
was
the
addition
was
added
to
the
top
of
the
fence,
but
then
they
became
aware
that
they
needed
to
get
approval
to
do
so
so
that
extension
was
removed,
so
they
could
go
through
this
process
and
again
I'll
defer
to
the
applicant
to
talk
to
the
history
of
that.
Okay.
Thank
you.
F
A
F
D
N
Okay,
so
yeah
the
pictures
that
you
guys
see
there
are
kind
of
tough
to
see
the
fence.
It
was
an
angled
shot
that
kind
of
showed
that
the
decline
of
the
rear
swale
actually-
and
there
are
some
other
pictures
that
I
did
send
in
a
few
weeks
months
ago,
of
the
being
in
the
back
of
the
house
staring
to
the
back,
which
is
north
of
the
property,
it's
a
clear
shot,
all
the
way
through
to
the
rear,
neighbors
backyard,
their
kitchen
and
their
bathroom.
N
They
can
see
it
clear
as
day
in
the
trees
are
actually
not
that
wide.
It's
just
the
angle
that
you
see
if
it
was
a
straight
shot,
which
there
are
some
pictures
of
that
as
well.
It's
clear
as
day
right
through
the
trees
that
fence
right.
There
is
when
we
actually
shot
the
elevation
from
the
bottom
of
that
fence
to
the
into
our
home.
It
is
a
it's
pretty
much,
acting
as
a
four
foot
fence
versus
a
six
foot
fence.
N
That's
why
we're
asking
to
apply
the
fence
was
never
eight
feet.
It
was
just
a
add-on
just
to
give
us
some
privacy,
because
at
night
you
can
see
right
into
our
back
windows
and
right
into
our
doors
into
our
home
and
it's
very
uncomfortable
because
behind
us
it
is
a
rental
property.
So
there
are
a
lot
of
different
individuals
that
come
in
and
out
of
that
property.
B
Yes,
so
thank
you
for
being
here
virtually
tonight,
sir,
so
just
to
clarify
so
there
currently
is
a
fence,
and
I
understand
that
you
had
made
it
taller
and
then
realized
that
you
needed
the
the
variants
and
everything
for
it.
So
you
took
it
down,
and
here
we
are
basically
looking
to
see
if
you
can
put
it
back
up.
Am
I
correct?
Yes,.
B
Okay,
so
what
you
currently
have
now,
how
tall
is
the
fence
itself.
N
B
Right,
so
the
fence
itself
is
six
feet.
What
you
can
see,
I
guess
what
I
would
call
ground
level
like
looking
at
the
photo
here.
That
has
your
backyard.
You
know
nice
paper,
slab
sort
of
like
you
know
where
your
property
naturally
is
to
the
top
of
the
fence.
That's
what
you're
saying
is
only
about
four
feet,
because
you
you've
lost
two.
N
Yeah
correct,
so
the
the
increase
from
the
bottom
of
that
fence
we
shot
is
about
two
feet:
five
inches
to
be
exact.
So
then,
once
you're
inside
the
house,
it's
another
foot,
because
the
house
is
up
another
foot
and
a
half.
So
really,
honestly,
when
you're
in
the
house,
it's
almost
like
a
three
foot
fence.
N
Yeah
well,
what
I
had
on
when
I
had
on
there
before
was
just
an
extension
that
was
only
a
little
over
a
foot
and
three
quarters.
It
wasn't
that
much
it
was
under
an
eight
foot.
It
was
just
an
extension
that
we
that
we
thought
you
could
be
buying
at
home
depot
and
you
can
just
put
them
up
and
get
somewhat
of
some
privacy,
because
we
have
none.
B
Right
and
you
you
have,
as
you
heard
in
our
discussion
earlier,
do
you
have
any
of
the
side
fences
up.
N
The
sides
are
fine,
the
to
the
to
the
east
of
us.
We
have
a.
We
have
a
bunch
of
trees
that
we
put
in
when
we
first
built
the
house,
so
it's
kind
of
covered
up
pretty
well
to
and
that
and
there's
no
windows
on
the
east
side
of
the
house,
so
that
doesn't
really
bother
us
on
the
west
side,
the
there's,
a
retention
pond
that
splits
us
and
the
other
neighbors.
So
there's
no
there's
no
fence
over
there.
N
G
A
N
Yes,
so
basically
there's
a
six
foot
fence
in
there
I
had
a
two.
I
had
a
two
foot
extension
on
top
that
six
feet:
the
neighbor
behind
me
called
code
enforcement,
saying
I
didn't
apply
for
the
variance.
So
that's
why
we
took
the
two
foot
section
down:
it's
back
to
six
foot.
It's
always
been
a
six
foot,
just
the
extension
was
put
onto
the.
E
B
And
if
the
two-foot
extension
was
put
back,
then
the
visible
or
I
guess
what
you
would
say,
functional
height
of
the
fence,
would
still
be
in
that
six
foot
or
under
height.
Am
I
correct.
B
Right
but
two
at
least
two
feet
of
that
is
lost
to
the
swale.
A
Eisen,
yes,
so
my
other
question:
if
the
when
you
had
this
fence
up
at
around
eight
foot,
did
that
give
you
privacy.
N
It
did
it
was,
it
was
fantastic,
and
then
we
got
code
enforcement
called
on
us
and
we
had
to
take
it
down.
It
was
a
very
uncomfortable
christmas.
A
And
since
he,
your
neighbor
was
back,
I
believe
in
june
july
correct
so
when
when
actually
did
you
take
it
down.
N
That
when
I
had
to
take
it
down
in
july,
because
code
enforcement
had
to
come
out
and
sign
off
on
it,
so
it
was
down
within,
I
would
say
a
couple
months.
I
believe
we
had.
I
had
a
little
family
issue.
I
know
we
had
a
little
bit
extension
put
on
on
taking
it
down,
but
I
can't
remember
exact
time
when
that
was
taken
down,
but
it
wasn't
within
a
couple
months.
N
A
N
N
It's
very
secure,
it's
very,
very
secure,
it's
actually
it's
it's
bolted
into
the
existing
four
by
fours
and
then
also
into
the
top
of
the
two
by
two
as
well.
It's
not
going
anywhere
at
all.
It
was
a
pain
to
take
down
and
it
is,
it
is
very,
very
secure
I
mean
I
would
I
would
if
there's
any
kind
of
storm
the
whole
fence
is
going
before.
That
would
go.
I
mean,
there's
there's
so
many
things
in
the
neighbor's
property
that
I'd
be
more
worried
about
than
the
fence.
G
N
G
N
So
yep,
so
the
extension
would
have
a
a
two
by
four
that
is
actually
bolted
to
the
actual
extension
then
bolts
into
the
into
the
four
by
four
itself,
and
that
four
by
four
is
in
the
ground
by.
I
think
two
feet.
It's
a
it's
an
eight
foot,
it's
an
eight
foot.
Four
by
four
we
had
the
fence
put
in.
A
F
A
N
Understood
I
would
say
the
reason
why
that
we
would
not
put
an
eight
foot
fence
in
because
it's
about
four
thousand
dollars
for
the
eight
foot
fence
and
I
have
135
feet
of
fence
line
that
would
have
to
go
in
and
to
be
honest
with
you,
the
tying
it
into
everything
else.
N
The
the
actual
addition
is
only
a
foot
that
I
have
in
there.
We
apply
for
the
two
feet,
but
I'm
it's
only
going
to
be
a
foot
that
being
any
difference,
structural,
wise
and
what
the
six
foot
you're
talking
about.
Seven
feet:
it's
not
going
to
be
any
different
than
a
six
foot,
you're
talking
about
a
foot
foot
and
a
quarter
difference,
not
the
full
eight
feet.
B
And
to
to
go
off
of
what
mr
eisner
was
saying,
so
when
code
enforcement
came,
you
know,
as
they
were
called
and
measured
and
said
you
had
to
take
it
down,
did
was
there
any
information
or
reporting
from
code
enforcement
that
your
extension
was
not
structurally
sound
or
in
compliance
from
that
was?
It
was
the
height
the
only
issue.
N
No,
the
it
was,
they
didn't,
have
any
issue
with
it
at
all.
They
actually
they
actually
kind
of
laughed
about
it
because
they
said
they
couldn't
believe
that
you
got
called
on
because
it
was
so
minimal
of
what
the
actual
issue
was.
I
mean
we're
only
talking
a
little
over
a
foot,
they
were,
they
just
said,
go
apply
for
the
variance,
and
you
shouldn't
have
an
issue.
I
said
yes,
ma'am,
that's
what
we'll
we'll
do
and
hopefully
get
some
privacy
back.
A
So
this
might
this
question:
is
the
legal?
Do
we
have
any
obligation
or
do
we
have
any
liability
if
something
if
we
approve
this
variance-
and
this
particular
piece
does
at
some
point
come
flying
off,
I
mean:
is
there
any
well.
D
A
couple
different
things:
first
of
all,
the
board
as
it
sits,
is
not
the
city,
so
the
board
of
adjustment
doesn't
have
any
liability
for
personal
property
or
structures
on
a
citizen's
real
property.
So
to
answer
your
question
from
a
legal
point
of
view,
if,
if
you
grant
a
variance
for
an
eight
foot
fence,
however,
they
choose
to
erect
an
eight-foot
fence
as
long
as
it's
properly
permitted
and
they
meet
the
height
requirements
that
that's
it.
That's
all
you're
doing.
There's
no
liability
of
this
board
whatsoever
from
a
negligence
perspective
period.
Okay,.
A
D
B
L
F
F
N
No,
the
only
thing
I
would
like
to
say
is
you
know,
thanks
for
the
opportunity,
I
just
I
hope
we
can
figure
something
out.
It's
just
we
like
to
be
a
little
bit
more
comfortable,
my
family,
in
our
home,
with
a
little
bit
of
privacy.
Since
you
know
we
built
this
home
and
have
beautiful
windows,
I
have
to
keep
them
all
closed
and
that
would
help
tremendously
to
have
a
little
bit
more
privacy.
F
H
Whom
it
may
concern?
Oh
greg
disticcare
wrote
this
email
to
whom
it
may
concern.
I
am
writing
this
email
to
request
that
this
variant
be
denied.
I
received
a
notice
of
public
hearing
for
the
issue
and
will
make
every
attempt
to
be
present
at
this
meeting.
If,
however,
I
am
not
able
to
be
present,
I
want
to
want
to
be
on
the
record
to
object
this
variant's
request.
I
am
concerned
about
the
natural
sunlight,
being
blocked,
unwanted
shadows
being
cast
and
southerly
breeze
or
blocking
thereof.
H
I
have
offered
my
rear
neighbor,
mr
valet,
several
remedies
to
which
he
agreed,
but
now
it
appears
has
changed
his
mind.
In
my
opinion,
this
gentleman
has
made
choices
that
make
his
fence
a
last
resort
for
his
request
for
privacy.
He
could
have
chosen
more
appropriate
trees
that
provide
a
visual
barrier
for
his
privacy.
H
He
could
erect
a
screened
enclosure
with
florida
glass
for
his
proposed
back
deck
for
his
privacy.
He
chose
to
build
a
new
home
under
current
building
codes
that
have
elevation
requirements,
deeming
the
first
floor
uninhabitable
just
how
much
privacy
does
a
person
expect
to
get
on
a
quarter
acre
lot
with
an
elevation
with
an
elevated
floor
plan.
H
H
F
F
Okay,
normally,
when
we
have
an
email
read,
we
don't
give
the
opportunity
for
the
for
people
to
do
public
comment,
but
since
we
didn't
check
in
for
you
first
I'm
open
to
hearing
from
this
man,
if
you
were
all
open
to
hearing
okay.
F
F
Yeah
yeah,
but.
D
Mr
decare,
I
cannot
see
you
so
if
I
could
just
get
your
word,
do
you
swear
from
the
testimony
you're
about
to
give
is
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
Yes,
thank
you.
O
O
O
The
standard
one
is
the
city
did
not
allow
mr
vallette
to
increase
the
height
of
the
fence
at
the
time.
This
lot
was
backfilled
when
he
pulled
the
permit
to
get
that
lot
back
filled,
and
so
I
questioned
why
they
would
allow
it
now
and
that's
his
own
comment
that
they
would
not
allow
him
to
do
that
and
also.
I
believe
that
that
also
is
one
of
the
standards
is
prior
knowledge
and
that's,
in
my
opinion,
that
he
had
prior
knowledge
that
it
was.
O
It
was
going
to
be
an
issue
if
the
city
required
this
lot
to
be
a
higher
elevation
and,
according
to
the
documents
it
was
higher
by.
You
know
four
four
feet:
eight
inches
again,
when
you
drive
down
the
street
on
rose
tree,
you
see
his
house
is
quite
elevated
compared
to
the
properties
on
the
east
and
west
sides,
and
that's
also
relevant
to
my
property.
O
So
it's
quite
high,
but
I
still
believe
that's
prior
knowledge
with
the
swales
and
things
like
that
with
the
retention
pond.
That's
there
that
that's!
That's
that
what
I
would
consider
alleviates
the
unique
situation
and
that's,
I
believe
in
one
of
the
standards
I
believe,
standard
one.
O
You
know
this
necessarily
wasn't
a
problem
created
by
you
know
the
anything
other
than
the
floodplain.
You
know,
I
believe,
in
order
to
pull
a
permit,
he
had
to
be
at
the
base
flood
elevation
plus
one
foot
to
even
put
the
slab
there,
but
it's
higher
than
the
neighbors
on
either
side
of
him
and
me
as
well.
O
So
I
just
think
that
that
choice
to
build
in
a
flood
plain
was
something
that
might
invalidate
standard
two
and
that's
the
special
circumstance.
O
Also
the
request,
I
think,
for
the
extension
which
was
installed
previously,
in
which
you
know
I
called
code
enforcement
on
is,
has
was
installed
without
a
permit
and
it
has
reappeared
and
he's
got
several.
I
don't
know
four
sections,
maybe
five
that
he's
installed
and
I
agreed
with
mr
ollette
that
we
would
let
the.
O
I
don't
know
if
that
person,
whoever
did
that
inspection
on
site
if
they
looked
at
the
sight
lines
from
my
property,
and
I
believe
that
that's
gonna
cause
me
injury
again.
He's
already
had
this
fence
up
and
it
is
unsightly
these
trees
that
he
built
they're
beautiful.
They
could
have
been
a
little
bit
closer,
but
they
were
immature
when
he
put
them
in
those
trees
are
going
to
grow.
O
O
O
You
can
put
florida
glass
up
as
a
remedy
to
the
entrance
to
for
the
sight
lines,
but
the
sight
lines
are
going
to
greatly
affect
you
know
from
our
property
at
the
same
type
of
what
they're
calling
subject
property
in
the
sight
lines.
They're
talking
about
are
going
to
be
affected.
O
I
see
no
reason
why
a
retention
pond
needs
a
privacy
fence
and
I
have
a
shed
on
the
property
and
when
the
extension
was
put
on,
it
was
as
tall
as
the
walls
and
encroached
up
over
the
height
of
the
walls
of
the
shed,
which
is
on
a
five
foot
setback.
O
So
I
know
the
setback
that
he
has
is
is
an
issue
and,
like
I
said
I
am
sympathetic,
I
agreed
for
him
to
put
three
panels
up
right,
adjacent
to
his
lanai
and
the
entryway
the
means
of
aggress.
O
F
Sir,
thank
you.
Do
you
have
any
questions,
mr
eisner
of
the
affected
party.
O
O
G
G
O
F
F
Okay,
correct!
Yes,
so
it
I
wish
that
we
did
have
a
picture
of,
and
I
wish
you
had
sent
us
a
picture
of
what
you're
talking
about,
because
it
does
not
seem
possible
that
you
could
see
his
fence
with
all
of
these
objects
in
the
way
of
this
man's
fence.
F
O
Well,
the
shed
blocks,
you
know,
probably
a
couple
of
panels.
The
the
other
tree
is
higher
so
and
I've
recently
trimmed
it.
The
other
tree
that
you're
talking
about
is
on
the
property
line
to
my
neighbor
to
the
west.
It's
absolutely
huge
and
it's
much
taller.
O
But
when
you
look
at
this
fence,
you
can
see
when
you're
sitting
on
the
back
patio,
you
can
see
his
back
door,
and
so
you
know
I'm
I'm
saying
that
you
can
see
it
now
the
trees
that
he
put
there
they're
like
an
evergreen
but
they're
too
far
apart
and
too
immature
to
block
the
view,
so
he
wants
again
has
put
the
fence
up
and
there
and
that's
this
is
where
all
this
started.
You
can
see
the
fence.
O
F
G
O
O
F
Right
right-
and
this
is
not
necessarily
part
of
our
purview,
but
I'm
simply
saying
that
I
believe
you
also
have
options.
If
we
were
to
give
this
man
this
fence,
you
could
fix
it
on
your
side,
so
you
don't
have
to
see
it
just
like.
Eventually,
his
trees
will
grow
to
maturity
and
they
will
cover
the
fence
and
probably
solve
the
problem
over
time.
But
in
the
meantime
you
know
each
of
you
are
looking
at
each
other.
So
mr
eisner.
A
From
what
I've
been
listening
to
the
one
way
that
you
both
could
solve,
this
dilemma
is
the
three
or
four
sections
that
you're
both
agreeing
on
you
possibly
should
just
take
out
the
six
foot
with
the
two
foot
extension
and
put
in
a
proper
eight
foot
fence
with
the
proper
four
by
four
posts,
and
both
of
you
should
be
in
agreement.
One
has
the
privacy
and
one
has
the
security.
Is
that
what
I'm
not
hearing
or
hearing.
D
F
D
D
D
E
They
have
pretty
much
full
view
of
my
main
living
area,
I'm
sure
they're,
not
thrilled.
With
that
we
have
a
fence.
I
really
thought
this
was
going
to
more
impact
me.
Yet
it's
down
the
street.
Those
two
streets
have
different
elevations
for
almost
every
house.
It's
kind
of
crazy,
it's
old
neighborhood
and
new
neighborhood
and
my
opinion
is
strictly
an
opinion.
Is
I
think
that
when
a
house
is
permitted
and
built,
we
should
have
the
expectation
that
we
can
provide
privacy
for
ourselves
and
our
family.
E
F
F
Minute,
sir,
we're
going
to
give
you
a
rebuttal
just
make
certain
there's
no
more.
N
So
yes,
mr
declare
is
correct.
We
had
an
agreement
prior
to
the
holidays.
I
had
a
lot
of
family
come
in
town
for
the
holidays
and
he
did
agree
to.
Let
me
put
up
some
panels
for
some
privacy
now.
Mr
declare
does
not
live
there.
He
rents
those
houses
out
that
house
out
itself.
So
I'm
not
really
sure
why
it's
that
big
of
a
deal
to
him
as
you
can
go
over
to
his
property.
N
As
for
the
trees,
yes,
the
trees
are
growing
only
so
much
because
they
don't
have
the
room
to
grow
because
of
how
close
they
are
to
the
fence
and
the
reason
why
we
had
to
do.
That
is
because,
when
we
built
the
house,
we
had
a
plan
of
where
the
elevation
was
supposed
to
be
well
closer
to
everything.
Once
everything
got
completed,
there
was
a
flag
thrown
with
the
city,
saying
we're
going
to
have
an
issue
with
drainage,
from
your
neighbor
from
the
north
and
the
east.
We
need
to
bring
your
house
up.
N
So
that's
why
they're
so
close
to
the
fence
they're
only
going
to
grow
so
wide,
because
the
fence
is
not
allowing
that.
As
for
the
privacy,
I
really
don't
understand
the
issue
with
a
little
bit
of
privacy.
He
does
not
live
there.
He
rents
it
and,
like
I
said
before,
his
renters,
I'm
guessing
feel
uncomfortable
because
there
is
a
black
sheet
up.
As
for
it
being
a
going
back
to
where
you
guys
were
saying
about
the
the
stability
of
the
actual
add-on,
it's
not
two
feet.
N
It
is
a
little
over
a
foot
and
that
structure
is
very
sound.
There's
it
should
not
have
any
issues.
If
a
hurricane
came.
I
don't
think
anyone
would
be
here
to
begin
with
and
that
whole
fence
would
be
gone.
There's
things
in
people's
properties
around
tarpon
springs
that
would
fly
before
this
fence
would
fly.
N
I
just
it's.
I'm
not
really
understanding
the
rebuttal
on
his
side
of
a
little
bit
of
privacy
for
his
renters,
and
for
me
that
I
also
pay
taxes.
Here
too,
I
want
to
have
a
little
bit
of
privacy
in
my
own
home,
and
I
don't
have
that,
and
you
know
when
going
back
to
the
fence
being
up.
Yes,
he
is
the
one
that
said
we
could
put
the
four
panels
up
and
then
after
christmas,
then
we'll
figure
out
something
else.
N
N
N
B
A
D
Okay,
so
to
that
point,
he's
only
asking
for
a
two
foot
variance
for
a
fence.
It
still
has
to
go
through
permitting.
So
whether
or
not
the
city
allows
you
to
have
a
two
foot
extension
or
to
replace
it
with
an
eight
foot,
fence
is
going
to
be
per
code
and
that
will
have
to
go
through
permitting
and
be
inspected.
So.
D
G
G
I
Again,
okay,
this
property
again
is
located
off
of
avocad
drive
outlined
in
yellow
the
property
and
properties
to
the
east.
West
and
north
are
zoned,
are
100
to
the
south.
The
properties
are
zone
r,
100
a,
but
these
are
both
single
family
residential
districts.
I
I
I
I
The
lane
development
code
does
have
specific
setback
standards
in
regards
to
pools
and
pool
screening
closures,
the
side
setback
again,
the
minimum
is
eight
feet.
They
are
proposing
the
five
foot
ten
inch
setback
from
the
east
property
line.
The
code
requires
the
rear
setback
of
an
enclosure
to
be
a
minimum
of
five
feet.
I
They
will
meet
that
minimum
requirement
from
the
rear
property
line,
and
then
there
is
a
setback
requirement
between
the
pools
waters,
the
pool
water
edge
to
the
enclosure,
and
that
is
a
minimum
of
three
feet
and
they
will
be
meeting
that
as
well
and
according
to
the
applicant.
The
need
for
the
variance
is
due
to
that
three
foot:
separation
between
the
water
and
the
enclosure-
and
here
are
your
standards
and
I
couldn't
answer
any
questions.
F
Any
questions
from
mr
burris
or
miss
rich.
B
I
don't
know
if
this
may
be
a
question
for
the
applicant.
I
know
sometimes
when
we're
looking
at
these
pool
screen
enclosures,
particularly
you
know,
with
the
setback
from
the
water's
edge,
is
this
variance
request
coming
because
they
need
to
build
a
complete
there's,
not
an
existing
screen,
enclosure
now
and
they're
building
a
new
one
or
is
it
sometimes,
you
know
they've
outlived
their
lifespan
and
we're
replacing?
This
is
a
new
enclosure,
a
new
enclosure?
Okay,
thank
you
for
the
clarification.
A
What
is
the
rules
and
regulations
for
putting
in
a
pool,
because
we
do
know
it's
a
given
to
be
three
feet
from
the
water's
edge
to
the
cage,
so
we
could
run
into
this
consistently
if
we
keep
putting
pools
in
with
you
know,
with
a
five
foot
setback
and
then
all
of
a
sudden,
it
turns
into
an
11
foot
setback
because
we're
adding
a
cage
I
mean
most
people
are,
do
add
a
cage,
maybe
not
on
the
onset,
because
it
costs
they
put
a
pool
in
then
they
say:
okay,
the
bugs
are
eating
them
and
they
want
to
go
and
put
a
cage
in
so
is
there
a
setting
for
a
setback
for
putting
a
pool
in
that
would
incorporate
the
use
of
a
cage
down?
I
So
how
the
lane
development
code
is
written
now
it
has
diff,
it
has
setbacks
for
just
the
pool
and
there's
also
setbacks.
If
there's
an
enclosure,
not
all
pools
have
enclosures.
So
I
think
that
is
where
the
intent
behind
having
different
setback
requirements
came
from.
So
just
so,
you
guys
know
the
minimum
setback
for
a
pool
to
the
side.
Lot
line
is
eight
feet
and
then
that's
measured
from
the
water's
edge.
A
A
B
G
Up
there,
where
the
x
is
minimum
eight
feet.
Yes,
on
the
paperwork
we
got
is
seven
feet.
I
F
J
J
Just
like
mr
eisner
was
saying
this
was
my
childhood
home.
I
grew
up
there
and
then,
when
my
parents
passed
away
recently
over
the
last
couple
years,
you
know
I've
we've
taken
it
we're
trying
to
renovate
it
and
they
didn't
use
the
pool
because
of
the
bugs,
because
if
you
look
at
the
map,
the
the
four
lots
behind
us
have
always
been
empty
for
ever
since
I've
been
there
back,
you
know
77,
and
so
the
bugs
are
incredible.
Back
there
we've
tried
different.
J
You
know
pest
control
places
to
come
out
and
spray,
since
the
city
doesn't
spray
for
mosquitoes
and
nothing
works,
I
mean,
even
in
the
middle
of
the
day,
you
can't
even
clean
the
pool
without
just
coming
back
with
welts
all
over
you.
So
that's
our
reason
for
doing
it
and
then,
unfortunately,
because
the
pool
is
so
close
to
the
side
and
that
we're
just
making
it
to
where
it'll
just
fit
the
three.
You
know
the
I
guess
code
for
the
screen
to
the
pool,
and
unfortunately
it
goes
over
about
a
foot
10.
I
think
okay.
F
Misterized,
okay!
Well,
that
makes
it
easy
do
we
have
any
emails
from
the
public?
Anyone
in
the
public
want
to
speak
out
in
the
audience
here.
How
about
in
cyberspace.
C
D
E
G
F
D
And
the
alternates
may
participate
as
well
so
join
in
the
fun
okay
hearing,
no
other
nominations.
The
nominations
are
closed.
All
in
favor
of
mr
roboski
as
chair.
Please
raise
your
hand
and
say
aye
aye
hi,
one
two,
three,
four,
all
for
our
vice
chair
to
be
elevated
to
chair.
Please
raise
your
hand
and
say
aye
aye,
one
two,
mr
harvowsky,
you
have
yet
another
I'm
holding
out.
D
D
G
F
F
D
There
is
none,
so,
okay,
I
can't
say
there
is
none
wow.
So
I
was
like
oh.
B
D
So
keep
in
mind,
this
is
not
a
court
of
law.
You
don't
have
a
mechanism
like
perjury,
where
there's
any
type
of
civil
contempt
or
criminal
contempt
ramifications
where
they
get
put
in
jail.
They've
taken
an
oath,
that's
on
their
honor,
whether
or
not
they
are
going
to
tell
the
truth.
Now,
just
like
any
other
court
of
law.
D
Retorts
their
representations,
you
then
get
to
say,
okay.
Well,
what
is
the
more
credible
of
the
two
pieces
of
evidence?
Do
I
believe
this
person's
testimony
over
this
person's
testimony?
Do
I
believe
this
physical
record
over
this
person's
testimony,
or
vice
versa?
So
it's
up
to
you
to
weigh
the
credibility
of
the
evidence.
That's
before
you,
some
of
the
things
this
evening
were
very
clear-cut,
that
there
was
a
yes
and
a
no.
There
was
a
right
and
a
wrong.
There
was
a
truth
in
a
mistruth.
D
Is
the
way
I'll
say
it,
but
other
than
that,
it's
it's!
Basically,
you
need
to
use
your
credibility
judgment.
I
don't
have
the
authority
to
say:
let's
call
the
sheriff
and
you
know
get
them
locked
away,
so
understood.
L
Really
they
did
really
bother
me,
and
I
almost
asked
the
question
similar
to
that
during
the
speech,
because
when
we
ask
someone
a
question
and
they
answer
and
then
we
find
out,
they
didn't
answer
truthfully.
You
know
it.
It
didn't
change
how
I
voted,
but
it
really
upset
me.
You
know
that
the
person
would
do
that
after
taking
that
oath,
but.
D
D
The
question,
but
that
that's
why
you
guys
sit
in
a
position,
I'm
not
going
to
say
of
power,
but
in
a
position
of
judgment,
and
you
know
it
is
up
to
you
to
determine
the
quality
of
the
and
the
credibility
of
the
evidence.
That's
presented
to
you
and
to
weigh
that
against.
You
know
whether
it
is
enough
to
meet
the
criteria
so,
especially
with
regard
to
testimony
there's
going
to
be
opposing
sides
on
a
lot
of
things,
especially
by
and
between
neighbors.
F
D
D
If,
if
say,
there's
a
developer
that
comes
in
here
and
puts
an
engineer
before
you
puts
their
resume
here
before
you
and
they
make
representations
the
cities-
and
you
know
if
the
city
had
an
engineer
and
it
came
and
it
made
different
representations-
the
math
fleshed
out
differently
same
answer.
You,
you
you're
here
to
determine
the
credibility.
There's
no
ramifications!
You
know
it's
the
court
of
public
opinion.
Their
reputation
is
what
they
have
that
that's
all
outside
the
purview
of
this
board
and
anything
that
we
can
do
to
remedy
that.
F
D
And
keep
in
mind
too
that
that
comes
out
on
the
record.
So
if
any
of
these
things
get
appealed
and
a
judge
sitting
in
judgment
sees
that
the
judge
can
make
those
comments
too
and
and
then
in
a
civil
court
in
an
appellate
statute
stature,
you
know
there
certainly
can
be
other
ramifications,
but
likely
not
I
mean
the
ramifications
are
it's
quite
obvious
that
there's
an
untruth
and
that
that
person
loses
credibility.
F
So
if
a
case
was
appealed,
that
could
be
some
evidence
that
would
be
used
to
justify
the
appeal
that
someone
that
was
an
expert
actually
said
something
demonstrably
false.
Well.
D
Yes,
so
the
record
is
the
record
one
way
or
the
other.
The
the
thing
that's
going
to
be
appealed
is
your
order,
based
on
your
findings
of
fact,
and
your
conclusions
of
law
based
on
the
competent
substantial
element,
evidence
that's
presented
if
you've
got
two
competing
experts,
opinions
and
one
of
them
is
demonstrably
false.
D
F
Do
we
have
a
meeting
next
month?
Yes,.
G
G
F
All
I
can
say
in
the
defense
of
that
man
is
it.
I
think
that
he
may
have
thought
that
you
were
talking
about
the
specific
ones
that
the
guy
was
pissing
and
moaning
about,
because
there
were
ones
that
that
guy
was
okay
with
and
maybe
those
he
didn't
think
were
being
objected
to,
and
so
they
had
agreed
that
those
were
okay
to
be
up
right.
So
that's
the
only
defense
I
can
come
up
with,
but
I
don't
know.
If
that's
the
case,
I
mean
it.
F
Certainly
is
it's
it's
a
head
scratcher,
but
you
know
it
seemed
like
a
gotcha
thing
like
the
the
guy
doesn't
even
live
in
that
house
back
there
and
he
was
just
like
ooh.
I'm
gonna
get
this
guy
for
adding
on
to
his
vents,
even
though
it
benefited
him
actually
because
his
renters
now
don't
have
this
issue
of
privacy
either
right,
but
he
just
seemed
like
that
was
that
was
just
my
take
on
it.
So
now
that
we
can
just.
F
A
F
F
So
anyhow,
yeah
people
ought
to
just
work.
It
out
sounds
like
they
tried
for
a
bit.
It
didn't
wound
up
here.
So
with
that,
we
will
adjourn
at
8
22.