![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mW4iIuRAWA8/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments August 25,2021
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
A
A
A
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
apply
those
findings
of
fact
to
previously
established
criteria
containing
the
code
of
ordinances
in
order
to
make
a
legal
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
defined
against
the
applicant.
C
C
E
E
E
The
lane
development
code
states
that
the
length
of
a
private
dock
cannot
extend
from
the
mean
high
water
line
further
than
half
the
width
of
the
property
at
the
waterfront.
This
property
has
approximately
51
feet
of
water
frontage.
This
would
be
allowed
to
have
a
25
and
a
half
foot
total
dock
length.
They
are
proposing
a
total
length
of
45
feet
to
provide
just
a
little
bit
of
clarity.
You
may
have
noticed
in
the
application
they
were
originally
asking
for
both
a
length,
as
well
as
a
width
variance.
E
However,
following
the
trc
review,
they
did
revise
their
site
plan
to
eliminate
the
need
for
the
width
variants,
so
they're
only
requesting
the
length,
and
that
is
the
site
plan
that
you
guys
were
provided
as
well
as
the
staff
report
was
paired
off.
Of
that.
E
E
The
dock
allowances
and
lane
development
code
are
basically
are
based
on
the
width
of
water
frontage
that
you
have
so
I
stated
the
dock
length
is
limited
to
half
of
the
width
of
the
property
and,
again
that's
measured
from
the
mean
high
water
line
and
then,
as
far
as
the
dock
width
and
location,
it
states
that
docks
must
be
located
within
the
center
one.
Third
of
the
property
for
this
particular
property,
you're
required
a
minimum
of
17
feet
from
either
side
the
dock,
to
the
adjacent
property
lines
and
again,
with
the
revised
site
plan.
E
The
land
development
code
also
provides
provisions
to
for
doc,
dimensional
standards
to
be
waived
administratively.
If
statements
of
no
objection
are
signed
by
affected
adjacent
property
owners,
those
statements
of
no
objection
were
not
provided,
which
is
why
the
applicants
are
here
today
requesting
variance
approval.
E
This
is
a
look
at
the
provided
site
plan.
There's
a
lot
going
on
on
the
screen,
so
I'm
going
to
try
my
best
to
walk
you
through
it.
The
applicants
again
are
proposing
a
new
dock.
It
will
have
a
four
foot
wide
catwalk
with
a
boat
lift
at
the
end
and
jet
ski
lifts
behind
the
boat.
Lift
these
orange
lines
on
either
side
do
my
best.
Are
the
extended
property
lines
and
then
again
the
length
of
a
dock
is
measured
from
the
mean
high
water
line.
This
is
that
light
blue
line
here.
E
So
this
is
where
you
start
your
measurement
for
this
particular
property.
It's
approximately
eight
feet
from
the
top
of
bank.
Again
they
would
be
permitted
about
25
feet
in
length
for
a
dock
and
they
are
proposing
45
feet.
The
site
plan
and
survey
that
they
provided
does
show
the
adjacent
docks
to
the
north
and
the
south,
which
are
the
green
structures
on
either
side
of
the
drawing
showing
that,
although
they're
exceeding
the
length
that
they're
allowed
for
this
particular
property,
they
are
consistent
and
similar
with
what
is
surrounding
them.
E
Again
we
stated
this
property
is
a
legally
non-conforming
lot
of
record.
So
we
took
a
look
at
some
of
the
surrounding
contexts,
so
we
looked
at
500
feet
to
the
north
and
south
along
bay
shore
drive
for
the
waterfront
properties,
the
lot
widths
range
between
62
feet
and
204
feet,
there's
an
average
lot
with
average
or
leverage
lot
width
of
90
feet
and
again
the
minimum
lot.
Width
for
r100
is
75
feet
and
this
property
has
approximately
51
feet
of
frontage
for
comparison.
F
Yes,
I
have
a
question
please,
on
your
preliminary
staff
recommendation
to
approve
page
one,
I
recommend
approval
of
the
dac
length
variance
request
when
you
go
to
pay
to
the
site
plan
arch
canvas
roof
covering
non-permanent
sea
neighbors.
Can
you
explain
that
part
of
it.
D
E
I
think
they're
just
stating
that
they
are
going
to
have
a
covering
on
the
boat,
lift
and
they're
just
showing
providing
a
picture
showing
what
type
of
covering
that
not
is
not
necessarily
anything
to
look
at
for
the
land
development
code
purposes.
We
do
look
at
that
roof
structure
in
terms
of
the
width
of
the
dock
and
on
the
site
plan.
It
does
show
that
that
dock
does
not
exceed
that
17
feet
of
width,
even
with
the
roof
structure,
does.
E
A
H
G
I
don't
know
if
this
is
maybe
I
asked
can
ask
city
staff
or
attorney
we've
been
presented
also
with
the
letter
from
the
the
christmases
and
mr
branch
and
miss
dominic.
I
hope
I
didn't
butcher
her
name.
G
Did
I
get
it
yay
and
in
the
letter
it's
referencing
an
11
foot
additional
feet,
but
in
the
application
here
we
have
a
20
foot.
H
The
11
was
the
initial
when
we
were
trying
to
go
wider
as
well
with
the
jet
skis.
After
talking
with
my
dock
builder
planning
and
zoning,
we
kind
of
worked
out
where
we
didn't
have
to
go
wider
and
we
could
just
go
out
to
the
same
length
as
a
neighboring
docks
and
still
get
the
ability
to
put
the
jet
ski
with
jet
skis
in
there
without
encroaching
on
the
sides.
Okay,.
G
All
right
so
then,
maybe
if
I
can
ask
you
for
clarifications,
we
can
kind
of
verbalize
that
so
the
original
application
that
you
had
put
out
to
put
forth,
which
asks
for
the
dock
width
as
well
as
the
length
length
being
going
into
the
water.
Your
original
was,
you
know.
If
you
see
this
diagram
here,
you
have
coming
from
your
house
from
coming
from
land.
G
H
G
A
I
My
name
is
jerry
christmas.
I
reside
at
640,
bayshore
drive
and
things
have
changed
again
like
he
keeps
playing
a
game
of
bait
and
switch,
and
I
had
no
idea
that
he
had
given
up
the
desire
to
move
outward,
and
so
my
letter
addresses
the
outward
movement
more
than
anything,
but
we
sat
back
there
and
maybe
we
don't
need
to
say
anything,
but
I'm
just
really
uncomfortable
with
where
this
leaves
us.
I
let
me
read
my
letter,
please
and
then
I'll
I'll
try
to
address
why
I
still
feel
the
need
to
say
something.
I
My
this
is
a.
I
wrote
this
back
on
8
22,
to
whom
it
may
concern
my
wife
teresa,
and
I
have
lived
at
640
bay
shore
drive
for
21
years.
The
small
property
adjacent
to
us
has
been
empty
all
this
time.
I
have
always
kept
the
grass
mowed
our
in
our
introduction
to
jeremy.
The
new
owner
occurred
when
jeremy
knocked
on
our
door,
requesting
my
life
to
sign
my
wife
to
sign
a
variance
request
for
the
doc
he
wanted
to
build
on
the
water
property
he
just
purchased.
I
Jeremy's
response
to
this
revelation
was
that
he
didn't
remember,
saying
that
about
john
on
a
later
attempt,
he
specified
a
variance
request
for
an
additional
11
feet
extension
into
the
water,
but
but
admitted
that
the
printed
drawing
showed
a
four
foot
variance
laterally
on
both
sides
of
the
planned
dock.
Again,
when
confronted
on
the
apparent
omission,
he
told
my
wife-
oh,
I
thought
you.
I
thought
I
told
you
that
we
have
had
several
meetings
with
john
and
syed
to
discuss
jeremy's
requests.
I
We
have
all
we
have
agreed
all
along
that.
We
are
willing
to
a
seed
to
11
feet
out
but
are
uncomfortable
acceding
to
any
lateral
expansion.
Due
to
the
closeness
of
our
docks
and
pending
visible,
impeding
visibility
and
maneuverability
jeremy's
claim
to
a
non-conforming
hardship
includes
needing
to
build
out
11
additional
feet.
We
already
acquire
acquiesce
to
length
and
the
need
to
spread
sideways
due
to
the
narrowness
of
the
property
he
chose
to
purchase.
I
A
comparison
of
dock
with
to
water.
Frontage
demonstrates
16
for
us,
40
for
john
and
syeda
and
47
for
jeremy,
that
that
that
ratio
was
based
on
his
request
at
the
time,
which
would
have
added
up
to
24
feet
wide
for
divided
by
a
51
foot
length
with
frontage
water
frontage
of
his
property.
The
owner
of
the
narrows
property
is
asking
for
doc
with
the
50
of
his
frontage.
Of
course,
this
no
longer
applies
unless
he
has
other
tricks
up.
I
His
sleeve
teresa,
and
I
will
be
looking
at,
would
have
been
looking
at
a
seven
foot.
Extension
protruding
onto
our
side
of
jeremy's
modified
doctor
interfering
with
ability
to
enjoy
our
view
and
allow
for
adequate
room
for
maneuvering
our
boat
onto
the
lift
both
neighbors
are
con.
Both
both
neighbors
are
confused
by
jeremy's
claim
to
a
hardship
variance
from
the
beginning.
Both
households
have
agreed
to
the
11
foot
extension
out
into
the
deeper
water.
In
early
june,
we
invited
jeremy
to
our
house
to
discuss
his
request
at
that
time.
I
He
only
requested
to
extend
out
four
feet
toward
our
property,
not
the
current
seven
feet.
Again,
that's
changed.
We
told
him
he
could
have
the
extended
length,
but
not
the
four
feet
he
planned
to
use
to
build
jet
skis.
He
stated
that
he
was
okay
with
that
decision,
because
he
could
park
his
jet
skis
on
the
other
side
of
his
dock
away
from
us
in
front
of
his
boat,
lift
on
a
floating
dock.
I
We
told
him
we
would
sign
but
requested
that
he
give
us
an
updated
drawing
survey,
including
a
signature
section
on
the
same
page
as
the
schematic.
We
next
heard
that
he
had
applied
for
a
hardship
variance.
Both
neighbors
are
requesting
that
the
hardship
is
what
the
hardship
is.
Since
we
both
agreed
to
give
him
the
extra
length
he
said
he
needed.
I
We
are
frustrated
and
disappointed
that
jeremy
seems
to
be
an
unreliable,
informant
and
avoids
cooperating
with
his
new
neighbors.
Thank
you
for
your
attention
to
this
important
letter,
jerry
christmas
teresa
christmas,
john
branson,
syed
of
dominic,
and
I
would
I
would
suggest
to
you
that
the
idea
is
not.
I
We
didn't
decline
the
length
we
we
were
happy
to
give
him.
The
extra
well,
maybe
not
happy,
but
we
agreed
to
give
him
the
the
11
feet.
Now.
We
show
up
tonight
ready
to
make
our
point
and
find
out
that
he's
bait
and
switched
again
and
without
any
communication
to
us
without
any
spr
response
to
our
responses
to
him.
I
think
we've
given
him
a
fair
shot
and
when
you
say
that
the
reason
he
had
to
call
this
hardship
variance
is
because
the
neighbors
re
refused
to
sign.
I
That's
another
lie
we
didn't
refuse
to
sign.
We
just
refused
to
give
him
the
lateral
movement,
and
he
said
both
to
me
that
he
could
put
a
a
wet,
a
floating
dock
that
would
take
care
of
his
jet
skis.
So
that's
not
a
problem.
I
think
the
11
feet
probably
covers
any
deep
water,
deep
water,
deep
enough
to
get
your
boat
out
of
the
water,
and
I
don't
know
where
he
comes
up
with
the
idea
that
he
can
move
out
a
lot
farther.
He
chose
to
buy
a
property
that
only
has
a
51
foot
frontage.
I
If
he
wanted
to
build
that
that
far
he
could
have
bought
ours
at
151,
we
could
go
out
75
feet,
we're
not
going
off
that
far
and
it
just
seems
extremely
unfair.
That
he's
hasn't
given
us
a
chance
to
respond
to
the
these
new
plans
that
he's
making,
and
he
accuses
us
of
not
cooperating
with
him
when
we've
cooperated
with
him
all
along.
It's
been
him
all
along,
that's
bait
and
switched,
and
and
not
telling
the
truth
and
it's
extremely
frustrating.
So
I
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
make
that
point
tonight.
I
We
still
are
going
to
have
an
obstruction
with
a
with
a
dock
that
goes
out
that
far
we're
going
to
have
to
that's
going
to
take
away
a
lot
of
our
view,
not
to
mention
having
I
don't
I
don't
I
don't.
I
haven't
seen
his
new
plans
so
where's
the
dock
going
to
be
in
that
whole
what'd.
You
say
whatever
the
distance,
40
47
feet
out
or
almost
the
length
of
this
property.
G
I
believe,
actually,
if
we
could
ask,
I
think
it's
the
next
slide
up.
It's
the
aerial
view
that
you
have
the
the
red
dotted
line
that
I
believe
would
illustrate
mr
christmases.
A
I
I
had
never
heard
the
criteria
that
you
when,
when
you
buy
a
bowling
alley
piece
of
property
like
that
that
you're
allowed
to
step
up
with
everybody
else,
who's
has
the
larger
frontage
and
get
to
go
out.
Just
as
far
as
they
do
like
is.
Is
that
a
right
to
passage
or
something?
I
don't?
I
don't
understand
what
entitles
somebody
to
just
say
that
they
want
the
longer
doc
because
they
want
the
longer
doc.
G
And-
and
that's
where
I
believe,
I
don't
want
to
step
on
the
city
staff,
so
here
talking
about
the
requirements
that
have
to
be
met
by
any
applicant
that
comes
before
our
board.
There
is
a
set
of
criteria
which
is
two
or
three
slides
further
okay,
which
answers
these
questions,
be
it
a
dock,
a
shed,
a
building,
a
pool
whatever
the
situation
may
be,
and
I
don't
want
to
steal
your
thunder.
E
Sure
well,
yeah.
As
far
as
a
variance
review,
the
board
is
bound
by
this
set
of
criteria
if
they
feel
that
all
of
the
criteria
are
met
based
off
of
what
they're
asking
what
the
is
proposed.
That's
what
they
can
approve
a
request
if
they
believe
that
one
or
more
of
those
criteria
are
not
met,
that's
when
they
deny
an
application.
So
this
is
what
their
decision
is
bound
on.
E
I
This
this
is
what
I
got
from.
What
I
read
was
it
has
to
be
a
non-conforming
hardship.
I
don't
know
what
that
means,
but
my
understanding
was.
If
the
water
is
shallow,
there
then
yeah,
you
probably
have
a
right
to
go
or
you
can
ask
for
a
ride
to
go
out
a
little
bit
further
to
get
your
your
your
boat
be
able
to
get
your
vote
on
your
lift.
I
don't
know:
what's
non-conforming
about
his
property.
E
Sure
I
think
I
mean
I'll
price
them
a
little
bit
of
clarity,
so
this
property,
it's
considered
the
term
as
legal
non-conforming
lot
of
records.
That
means
this
property
was
platted
back.
I
believe
I
can
go
to
my
staff
for
like
in
the
20s,
so
it
was
a
legal
lot
at
that
time.
It
hasn't
changed
over
time.
It's
a
buildable
piece
of
property.
E
Since
this
was
planted.
You
know
certain
code
provisions
have
changed,
different
regulations
go
into
place
and
the
current
zoning
basically
allow
or
requires
for
this
zoning
district,
a
larger
piece
of
property.
So
if
someone
came
in
today
to
plot
properties
in
the
r
100
district,
they
would
have
to
meet
those
minimum
standards.
This
property
does
not
meet
those
standards
because
it
was
planted
prior.
That's
why
it's
illegal
non-conforming,
so
that's
just
a
consideration
when
looking
at
these
criteria,
the
term
like
hardship,
that's
pulled
from
the
criteria,
language,
a
physical
hardship
about
the
property.
E
J
My
name
is
john
branch.
My
address
is
644
bayshore
drive,
I'm
speaking
for
syeda
and
I,
as
was
stated
we've.
This
has
been
an
ongoing
process.
We're
not
really
sure
why
what
I
didn't
hear
was
defined
as
the
hardship
part.
That's
the
part.
I
don't
understand.
J
You
know,
we've
heard
what's
non-conforming,
but
what
is
actually
the
hardship
when,
when
we've
been
told
that
this
is
what
he
wants
and
we've
said,
we
would
agree
all
along
and
literally
right.
Now
we
just
found
out
about
the
additional
footage
and
we've
been
looking
on
your
website
and
saw
what
was
filed.
J
We
went
on
on
the
city
and
and
and
we
were
reading
that
letter
was
written
based
on
what
was
in
the
city,
you
know
and
what
he
was
requesting
then
and
literally
right
now
we
just
found
out
that
he's
trying
to
get
another
20
feet,
not
11
feet,
so
it's
like
we
still
haven't,
had
the
opportunity
to
to
basically
what
we've
been
trying
to
do
all
along,
which
is
accommodate
the
situation.
You
know
we
weren't
trying
to
battle
our
neighbors,
but
it
started
with
oops.
J
We
have
yet
to
get
what
we
were
asking
for,
which
was
just
literally
a
plan
of
what
you're
doing
like
with
the
actual
drawings,
with
the
variance
that
you're
asking
for
being
denoted
with
a
set
which,
what
the
city,
actually
we
came
to
the
city
and
they
told
us
these
are
the
things
he
needs
to
give
you
with
a
survey.
So
you
can
compare
the
measurements
and
how
they're
supposed
to
be
just
a
simple
thing
and
denoting
it.
Then
he
would
tell
us
that
and
then
come
back
and
oh
I
didn't
I
didn't
realize.
J
I
know
what
is
it?
What
was
his
wording
was.
Oh,
I
thought
I
told
you
that
when
he
tried
to
slip
in
four
feet
each
direction
towards
our
property.
Never
having
mentioned
that.
So
this
has
been
ongoing
and
then
now
we
walk
in
and
it's
10
more
feet
and
all
we
said
was
give
us
a
drawing.
What
you're
doing
we'll
give
you
the
11
feet?
It's
like
we've
done
nothing
to
disagree
with
him.
J
He
just
has
not
conformed
to
just
actually
working
with
his
neighbors
and
now
I
don't
even
know
when
this
happened,
because
it's
not
what
was
online,
so
we
actually
came
in
not
prepared
even
to
to
address
this
situation.
If
we
would,
you
know,
I
mean
we
don't
know
if
we
would-
or
we
wouldn't
address
this,
because
we
haven't
had
reasonable
time
to
even
look
at
it
because
as
of
this
weekend,
what
was
online
is
not
this.
J
It's
not
just
20
feet,
so
I
don't
know
when
that
changed,
but
we
were
going
on
your
site
and
what
we
were
sent
and
he
was
still
asking
for
the
width
it
has.
It
has
been
misleading
the
entire
time
and
then
now
it's
a
hardship,
variance
and
I'm
not
sure
what
makes
it
that,
because
he
hasn't
had
to
fight
us
and
at
this
point
it's
kind
of
like
well.
I
don't
really
know
why
it's
a
hardship
for
him
to
need
to
go
out
that
far
either.
You
know.
J
J
You
know
like
give
you
the
drawing
and
the
paper
separate.
We
came
to
the
city
with
the
paper
and
the
city's,
like
don't
sign
that
he's
basically
asking
you
to
sign
carte
blanche,
so
he
can
do
whatever
he
wants,
because
it's
not
attached
to
anything
like
this
has
been
one
step
at
a
time.
Only
to
find
out
right
now
that
it's
been
changed
again
literally,
since
we
got
the
information
to
try
to
to
address
it.
So
that's
really
all
I
have
to
say
I
don't
really
okay
know
what
else
to
say,
except
do.
F
J
J
While
we
were
sitting
here
and
we've
been
looking
online
and
we've
got
all
the
information
from
the
city,
and
this
literally
just
now
that
extra
10
feet
came
in
and
as
of
what's
online,
it's
still
asking
for
the
11
and
then
a
7
foot,
variance
hor.
You
know
laterally
towards
the
neighbors,
and
we
we're
still
trying
to
figure
out
what
the
hardship
is,
there's
no
hardship
as
to
why
he
would
need
to
go
that
additional
10
feet.
Miss
rich.
You
have
a
question.
D
Well,
just
I
understand
you're
questioning
about
the
hardship-
and
you
know
all
of
us
as
volunteers,
on
this
board.
D
A
D
It's
there,
it's
not
this
individual,
necessarily's
hardship
or
related
to
that
criteria
about.
If
it's
true
that,
if
what
he's
bringing
today,
he
had
approached
you
all
and
asked
you
to
sign
that
you
all
were
in
agreement
of
it,
then
it
would
not
even
ever
have
come
up
to
us,
but
the
hardship
language.
It's
you
know
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
stuff,
but
it's
it's
more
of
related
to
the
property
codes
type
of
thing
and
not
like
the
way.
D
We
would
talk
about
hardship
in
a
different
scenario,
and
I
know
it's,
you
know
we're
learning
this
language
too,
as
as
we
you
know,
none
of
us.
We,
you
know
we.
We
did
not
write
this.
You
know
the
codes
and
our
job
is
to
base
really
on
this
criteria
and
the
staff
recommendations
and
report
to
us
help
and
and
we're
so
appreciative
of
you
all
being
here
and
sharing
your
concerns.
J
G
I
just
I
wanted
to
echo
what
miss
rich
said.
Thank
you,
mr
branch
and
mr
christmas
for
coming
up
and
and
addressing
these
things
and
I
do
want.
I
do
agree
that
it
can
be
confusing.
This
isn't
language
that
we
use
in
our
normal
business
lives
or
personal
lives.
So
I
would
like
to
request
to
help
address
then
allay
these
concerns
that
you
know
the
neighbors
rightfully
have
about
this.
G
What
the
heck
are
we
talking
about
we're
talking
about
a
non-conforming
lot
of
record
those
aren't
words
that
fall
off
of
our
tongue
easily.
So,
mr
chairman,
if
I
may
suggest,
may
we
ask
for
the
guidance,
as
we
have
done
on
many
of
our
applications
to
go
through
those
one
through
five
with
the
city
staff
reading?
What
number
one
is
this,
and
this
is
the
findings
of
it
et
cetera,.
E
Okay,
all
right
so
number
one
I'll
read
the
the
criteria
as
well.
Criteria
is
the
need
for
the
requested
variants
arises
out
of
the
physical
surroundings,
shape
topographical
conditions
or
other
physical
or
environmental
conditions
that
are
unique
to
the
specific
property
involved
and
which
do
not
apply
generally
to
property
located
in
the
same
sony,
district,
staff's,
provisional
findings
of
fact,
where
the
land
development
code
limits
a
private
docs
length
based
on
the
amount
of
water
frontage.
E
The
property
has,
this
property
is
legally
non-conforming
and
only
has
51
feet
of
frontage,
which
is
less
than
the
required
in
the
r-100
zoning
district.
Due
to
the
water
depth
of
this
location,
it
warns
the
dock
to
extend
further
than
permitted.
Although
the
length
of
the
dock
will
exceed
what
is
permitted
for
this
particular
property.
It
is
consistent
with
other
similar
docs
in
the
immediate
area.
The
unique
physical
configuration
of
this
lot
and
the
water
depth
at
this
location
results
in
the
need
for
the
variants.
G
G
As
things
have
changed
now
we
have
certain
criteria
that
says
you
know
like
if
you
were
to
build
a
shed
or
a
fence
or
a
pool,
you
have
certain
setbacks,
so
it's
saying
he
doesn't
have
any
control
over
the
size
of
that
lot.
Nor
do
you
have
the
size
over
the
control
of
your
lot.
That's
one
of
those
situations
in
the
in
the
environmental
conditions.
We
don't
have
any
control
over
the
depth
of
the
water
in
front
of
us,
so
that
that's,
if
you
will
my
elementary
explanation
of
it.
E
Criteria
number
two:
the
conditions
or
special
circumstances
peculiar
to
the
property
have
not
been
self-created
or
have
resulted
from
an
action
by
the
applicant
or
with
prior
knowledge
of
the
approval
of
the
applicant
staff's
provisional
findings.
Of
fact,
where
the
51-foot
wide
subject,
property
was
originally
platted
in
1924
as
part
of
the
sunset
hills
subdivision
prior
to
the
current
zoning
regulations,
the
conditions
peculiar
to
the
property
have
not
been
self-created
and
the
need
for
the
variances
due
to
the
property
being
24
feet
narrower
than
required
under
current
zoning
regulations.
E
Criteria:
three
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
or
illegally
conforming
buildings
or
other
structures,
and
the
requested
variance
is
the
minimum
variance
that
will
make
possible
the
reasonable
use
of
the
property
staff's
provisional
findings.
Of
fact,
the
non-conforming
property
is
24
feet
narrower
than
required.
Under
the
current
zoning
regulations
for
the
r
100
zoning
district
dock
length
is
limited
based
on
the
width
of
the
property's
waterfront.
E
The
proposed
additional
dock
length
is
directly
in
response
to
the
non-conforming
lot
width
and
the
water
depth
at
this
location.
The
requested
variance
is
the
minimum
necessary
to
construct
a
usable
dock
that
is
consistent
with
what
is
allowed
elsewhere
in
the
district
for
waterfront
properties
criteria.
E
This
property
is
narrower
than
all
other
waterfront
lots
within
500
feet
and
is
also
below
the
average
width
of
90
feet.
These
other
lots
would
all
be
permitted
docks
that
are
the
same
or
exceed
what
is
proposed
by
the
applicant.
The
additional
dock
length
will
not
confer
any
special
uses
or
privileges
to
the
applicant
that
are
not
commonly
enjoyed
by
other
property
owners
in
similar
circumstances
criteria.
E
Staff's
provisional
findings
of
fact
approval.
The
additional
dock
length
will
not
substantially
diminish
property
values
in
the
surrounding
area,
nor
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
waterfront
neighborhood.
The
proposed
dock,
although
longer
than
permitted
for
the
width
of
this
property,
is
similar
to
other
docks
within
the
immediate
area,
and
that's
it.
H
H
The
last
one
that
I
presented,
you
said
do
away
with
the
jet
ski
lift.
I
agreed
with
this
process
was
already
in
the
works,
because
I
never
got
a
text
back
on
when
to
drop
that
off,
so
it
was
already
in
the
works
when
we
got
talking
with
them
to
eliminate
that
width
so
that
it
didn't
interfere
because
I
know
you
didn't
want
that
width
interference.
H
G
Goes
from
the
podium-
if
I
may
ask,
because
I
I
I
understand
the
process
of
doing
things
like
this,
particularly
when
you
have
a
tricky
lot
situation
being
narrower
than
normal,
because
again,
none
of
us
were
around
100
years
ago
to
plat
these
things.
What
was
your
process
of,
like
you
were
saying
you
originally
were
thinking
the
side
by
side.
G
Then
you
were
you've
had
changes.
It
sounds
like
in
the
statements
that
mr
christmas
and
mr
branch
were
stating
your
plans
have
been
changing,
and
that
seems
to
be
part
of
the
frustration
that
your
neighbors
are
facing,
we're
here
to
look
at
the
variance
and
the
application
and
all
of
this
legalese,
but
my
heart
also
wants
to
make
sure
that
we
have
good
neighbors.
G
G
So
if
we
did
just
to
let
you
know
the
next
step
from
here
say
if
we
were
to
vote
no,
this
doesn't
go
to
another
board
or
commissioners
or
anything
like
that.
That
goes
straight
to
the
courts.
So
that's
why
we
do
take
these
things.
You
know
quite
seriously
and
whatever
the
applicant
is
granted
or
not
granted.
That's
then
worked
with
the
planning
department.
The
attorney
has
all
of
this
documented
saying
it
was
agreed
that
he
has
11
feet
or
20
feet
or
however
many
feet.
G
H
H
H
No,
no,
it
was
the
original
designs.
Okay
from
the
previous
owner
of
the
lot.
H
H
G
And
and
perhaps
maybe
what
we
could
do
to
allay
everyone's
concerns
of,
we
could
ask
the
city
attorney
or
city
staff
to
review
what
happens
from
this
point
forward
say
if
we
were
to
grant
kind
of
the
the
two
paths
this
could
take.
We
could
vote
yes
to
grant
him
the
20-foot
variants
to
go
out
what
then
the
applicant
has
to
do
from
today
to
launching
his
boat
on
that
dock
and
then
part
two.
If
we
vote
no,
then
what
happens.
E
I
can
do
that
so
if
the
variance
is
granted,
it
is
bound
to
what
this
plan
is
shown.
This
is
or
was
shown.
That
is
the
evidence
for
the
case,
so
that
allows
for
the
20-foot
encroachment.
The
next
step
from
here
is
to
get
a
building
permit.
That
building
permit
is
not
only
reviewed
by
tarpon
springs.
It
also
is
reviewed
by
pinellas,
county
water
and
navigation,
there's
a
much
longer
name
to
that.
They
reviewed
as
well.
They
are
the
ones
really
the
owners
of
the
waterways.
E
If
the
variants
were
to
be
denied,
the
applicant's
options
are
one
to
propose
a
dock
that
complies
with
what
the
land
development
code
allows
and
go
through
the
permit
process.
That
way,
the
other
option
is
to
appeal
the
decision
and,
as
jackie
said
it
was
that
would
go
to
the
courts
to
appeal.
It
does
not
go
to
a
different
board
locally
or
well
in
tarpon
springs,
and
then
the
third
option
is
if
the
plans
were
to
revise
to
be
a
lesser
variance
or
different,
substantially
different.
E
F
F
F
H
F
Do
that
yes
yeah?
I
understand
that,
but
you
have
to
see
the
point
that
if
it
was
75
feet,
then
they
will
have
a
better
visibility.
Now
they
don't
because
your
dock
is
going
to
be
further
out.
So
if
you
give
a
little
they
gave
already
whatever
they
gave
11
feet,
I
don't
know
to
go
to
12.
You
come
down
from
20
to
12.
Maybe
this
can
be
resolved
rather
than
go
through
the
process.
H
F
D
F
A
C
A
F
E
We
just
want
to
make
you
aware
that
in
october,
the
original
meeting
date
that
we
had
it
was
on
october
27th.
We
had
to
move
that
for
a
conflict
with
another
meeting,
so
your
october
meeting
will
be
on
the
20th.
You'll,
obviously
get
your
packet
a
week
or
so
before
and
you'll
be
aware,
but
we
just
want
to
make
you
aware
that
that
date
is
a
week
earlier.
A
Okay,
good
to
know
board
comments.
A
Anyway,
I
guess
I
have
a
question
regarding
this
wetland
setback.
Do
we
know
what,
when
we're
gonna
hear
that.
E
The
the
deferred
case,
so
that
one
actually
we
were
talking
with
the
applicant,
they
might
be
going
through
a
different
process
altogether.
That
would
involve
them
going
through
basically
a
plan
development
which
would
take
away
the
variances
so
they're
trying
to
work
through
that
determine
what
they
want
to
do.
So
it's
just
deferred
until
they
decide
to
move
forward
with
that.
If
they
do
go
to
the
plane
development
route,
they'll
still
have
public
hearings,
but
with
planning
and
zoning
board
and
board
of
commissioners.
E
Re-Advertise
for
that
one,
if
it
does
come
back
to
the
meeting
or
come
back
to
the
board,
sorry.