![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VSMg8dBLuHo/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments October 26, 2022
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).
C
A
C
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
My
name
is
Nancy
stuporich
and
I'm,
an
attorney
with
the
Vos
Law
Firm,
the
quasi-judicial
statement,
because
the
matter
tonight
before
the
board
is
quasi-judicial
in
nature.
This
is
the
quasi-judicial
proceeding
where
the
board
is
going
to
act
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
the
law
that
has
already
been
established
in
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
C
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
which
are
contained
in
the
code
of
ordinances,
in
order
to
make
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
that
is
before
it.
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
of
this
hearing
that
the
law
considers
to
be
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
to
the
issues.
C
C
D
Okay
about
eight
months
ago,
on
this
very
Street
here,
I
had
an
accident
from
the
pro
from
the
driveway
of
the
house
across
the
street,
which
is
mentioned
here
on
page
two
of
the
planning
and
zoning
boards
discussion
and
item
number
four
on
Ridge,
Street
and
I
was
sideswiped
by
the
owner
son
of
the
house
across
the
street.
That's
mentioned
in
this
application
and
they
have
a
six
foot
fence
and
the
kid
has
no
visibility.
C
Okay,
so
either
of
these
visits
in
any
way,
does
it
bias
you
in
your
ability
to
impartionally
review
the
evidence
that's
presented
today?
Can
you
be
fair
and
and
evaluate
the
evidence?
That's
presented.
C
Okay,
so
at
this
time,
if
there
is
anyone
wishing
to
speak
this
evening,
would
you
please
rise
and
be
sworn
in.
C
C
E
Husband,
maybe
under
contract
with
the
regarding
the
the
roof
to
this
location,.
C
C
Okay,
so
I
believe
that
you
do
have
a
conflict
and
we
would
ask
that
you
complete
the
I
think
it's
form
eight,
yes
and
file
that.
A
So
just
for
hearing
Miss
Simon's
conflict
is:
does
that
mean
that
she
is
not
going
to
be
able
to
be
voting
in
this
application?
I'm
assuming
that
is
correct?
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Okay.
So
now
we
will
move
on
to
the
presentation
of
application
number
22-88,
which
is
a
variance
to
allow
to
fence
fence
to
exceed
the
maximum
allowable
height
property
at
160,
Reed
Street,
if
Ali
Miss
Keen,
if
you
can
please
present
on
behalf
of
the
city,
sure.
F
Ali
Keane,
planning
and
zoning.
The
property
is
outlined
here
in
yellow
it's
at
the
corner
of
Canal
Street
and
Reed
Street.
This
property
is
zoned
RMS,
which
is
residential
multi-family.
This
area
is
really
a
mixture
of
different
residential
zoning
districts.
There's
r70
one
and
two
family
to
the
west
of
the
site
and
then
to
the
South
is
the
CRM
District,
which
is
the
conditional
residential
mix.
District
again,
the
applicants
are
here
today
requesting
variance
approval
to
construct
a
six
foot
tall
fence
within
the
required
front
yard,
along
Reed
Street
within
residential
districts.
F
This
is
a
look
at
the
site
plan
provided
by
the
applicant
Reed.
Street
is
required
to
have
a
20-foot
front
yard
setback,
which
is
the
Blue
Line
shown
here
on
the
screen.
The
applicants
are
requesting
variance
approval
for
the
red
portion
outlined
here
and
again
they're
proposing
a
six
foot
tall,
aluminum
picket
fence,
which
is
within
technically
their
front
yard.
They
also
are
constructing
a
six
foot:
wood
fence
along
the
side
and
rear
of
the
property,
which
is
the
purple
here,
and
that
does
comply
with
the
code
requirements.
F
The
intersection
of
Canal,
Street
and
Reed
Street
really
creates
a
unique
lot
configuration
for
this
property
because
it
does
not
result
in
a
90
degree
angle
like
most
Corner
properties.
This
structure,
which
was
originally
built
back
in
1926,
is
situated
at
the
corner,
northwest
corner
of
the
site
and
it
has
a
zero
foot
setback
along
Canal
Street.
So,
although
the
Reed
Street
Frontage
is
technically
a
front
yard,
as
defined
by
the
Land
Development
code,
it
really
functionally
serves
as
the
side
yard
for
the
property.
F
This
is
a
image
looking
along
Reed
Street,
the
subject
property
over
here
to
the
left.
As
mentioned
earlier,
there
is
an
existing
six
foot
tall,
aluminum
picket
fence
across
the
street
for
the
neighboring
property.
It's
a
little
hard
to
see
here,
but
it
does
drop
down
to
about
three
feet
in
height
here
and
that
is
for
the
intersection
visibility
requirements.
This
property
is
considered
their
side
yard
because
it's
oriented
towards
Spring
Boulevard
and
you
are
permitted
to
have
a
six
foot
fence
in
your
side
yard.
F
F
The
applicants
did
go
before
the
Heritage
preservation
board
back
in
July
of
this
year
for
approval
of
the
fence,
and
the
board
did
approve
that
contingent
on
the
variance
approval.
The
board
also
stated
that
if
the
board
of
adjustments
chose
to
deny
the
variants,
they
would
support
a
six
foot
tall
gate
along
the
driveway,
with
remaining
portions
being
reduced
to
four
feet
in
height.
F
One
consideration
is
site
visibility
for
all
driveways.
The
code
does
require
a
15
foot
by
15
foot,
site
visibility
triangle
within
that
area.
It
must
be
kept
clear
of
obstructions
between
three
and
eight
feet
in
height.
That
section
of
the
code
also
has
an
exemption
allowing
poles,
Tree,
Trunks
and
similar
structures
with
diameters
less
than
six
inches
to
be
located
within
that
site.
Visibility
triangle
shown
here
along
the
driveway.
The
red
triangles
indicate
that
15
foot
site
visibility
triangle.
F
The
proposed
fence
does
encroach
within
that
visibility
triangle,
but
because
it's
proposed
to
be
a
six
foot,
aluminum
picket
fence.
As
long
as
the
bars
are
six
inches
or
less
in
diameter,
they
would
fall
into
that
exemption
based
off
some
history
with
some
fences
and
visibility
in
the
past.
If
the
board
does
approve
the
variance
staff
does
recommend
adding
a
condition
that
states
once
the
fence
is
constructed.
F
If
the
police
department
deems
it
to
be
a
safety
issue
due
to
site
visibility,
the
fence
will
be
required
to
be
modified
to
mitigate
that
issue
and
that
can
be
determined
if
there's
ever
a
complaint
on
the
property
for
the
fence
in
the
site.
Visibility-
and
here
are
your
five
decision
criteria
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
F
D
Course,
yes,
on
the
side,
visibility
triangle:
are
there
going
to
be
any
bushes
low,
trees,
six
foot
trees?
Anything
like
that.
So.
F
I'll
defer
to
the
applicant,
they
did
provide
their
landscape
plans
with
your
application,
but
they
can
probably
speak
in
more
detail,
but
within
the
site,
visibility
triangle
they
are
not
allowed
to
have
like
anything
that
would
be
in
that
height
or
that
obstruction
zone,
so
they
most
likely
were
required
to
put
lower
vegetation.
Well.
D
D
As
well
points
here
to
15
foot
by
15
foot
size,
which
means
15
feet
from
each
side
of
the
of
the
gate,
correct
well,
that
gate
is
on
the
left
of
that
first
Arrow,
there
of
the
property
across
the
street
and
that's
full
of
bushes
until
it
reaches
down
to
the
three
foot
fence.
So
how
come
the
city
cannot
control
that,
and
it's
going
to
control
this
one.
F
So
it's
the
site,
visibility
triangles
are
measured
again
for
driveways,
so
here
and
intersection,
so
there's
different
distances
for
the
intersections
and
it's
measured
along
property
lines.
I
don't
know
if
there
is
on
this
adjacent
property,
a
driveway
where
those
that
vegetation
Falls
within
the
triangle,
drivers.
F
D
A
You
you're
welcome
a
triangle.
Well,
you
have
this
slide
up.
Oh
I
apologize,
Miss,
rich
I
didn't
want
to
jump.
You
did
you
have
a
question
so
on
the
15
by
15
triangle.
A
Can
you
clarify
we
have
the
two
triangles
the
one
on
the
right,
the
one?
That's
you
know
further
Inland,
if
you
will
is
the
issue
of
note
at
this
point,
the
area
of
the
that
that
point
of
the
triangle
that
extends
beyond
that
blue
line
or
is
it
all
of
those
areas?
The
the
area
of
cons
of
potential
concern
is
that
tip
of
that
one
particular
triangle,
not
the
whole
visibility
triangle.
F
It
applies
to
the
entire,
so
everything
that's
shaded
in
red
is
the
entire
site
visibility
triangle.
So,
theoretically,
anything
within
this
area
would
have
to
comply
with
these
standards
of
the
code.
So
it's
kind
of
it's
a
little
hard
to
see
here,
but
where
the
blue
line
encroaches
into
that
those
are
the
areas
that
potentially
have
concern,
but,
like
I
said
what
they
are
proposing
would
fall
within
the
exemption
in
this
section
and
it
would
allow
it
to
be
there,
but
we
just
wanted
to
have
an
extra
safety
element.
A
A
I
believe
we
have
had
this
particular
property
come
before
this
board
in
the
past,
where
we
are
have
become
familiar
with
the
unique
characteristics
of
Reed,
Street
being
legally
the
front
yard
the
front
of
the
home
other,
rather
than
what
would
kind
of
be
that
point
of
the
house
there
on.
Is
it
spring,
so
I
believe
our
board?
We
are
familiar
with
those
unique
characteristics.
Are
there
any
other
questions
for
Miss
Keane
before
we
move
on
to
presentation
and
information
from
the
applicant.
H
H
Problem
hang
on
we'll
adjust
it
I
don't
know:
did
you
all
receive
a
copy
of
our
printout
here?
Okay,
very
good,
so
I
think
one
of
the
main
concerns,
obviously,
is
the
slide.
That's
still
up
here.
Talking
about
the
site.
Visibility
I
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
what
I
believe
is
slide
number
20,
as
well
as
18
and
19.
that
clearly
depicts
the
plant
schedule
that
was
established
with
the
criteria
for
the
site.
H
Visibility
triangles
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
we've
also
been
in
front
of
both
historical
board.
We
also
attended
a
technical,
Review
Committee,
to
which
we
made
alterations
based
on
the
city's
requirement
for
the
site
triangle.
If
you
look
on
slide
18,
it
does
show
the
plant
lists
and
it's
better
defined
and
easier
to
read
on
slide
19
and
those
plants
do
not
anywhere
close
exceed
the
height
requirement
for
that
site
triangle.
A
And
looking
at
your
packet
here,
I
believe
it
is
page
16
which
does
provide
the
clear
picture
of
the
home
across
the
street,
the
three-story
White
House,
yes,
I'm,
looking
at
this
fence
material.
Now
again,
we
want
to
make
sure
everyone
knows,
and
our
artboard
knows
that
the
criteria
we're
looking
at
the
only
thing
that
we
have
any
say
over
is
regarding
height.
You
could
have
it
purple
polka
dotted
historical
preservation,
I'm
certain.
They
will
frown
upon
that.
As
you
know,
we
don't
have
any
control
over
materials,
plantings,
colors
Etc.
A
H
Absolutely
in
fact,
it
was
modeled
to
try
to
attempt
to
match
that
and
I
think
a
better
picture
would
be
number
nine
and
it
shows
the
across
the
street
gate.
That's
kind
of
the
vision
as
to
what
they're
looking
for
it
is
black
in
nature,
and
it
does
meet
the
requirements
that
the
city
proposed
about
the
spacing
and
and
quite
a
bit
of
thought
was
considered
to
go
into
this
project,
and
this
is
not
a
cheap
approach
to
doing
this.
This
project
exceeds
well
over
six
figures.
A
E
A
H
So
we're
here
in
front
of
the
board
today,
because
we
have
a
unique
procedural
history.
Like
I
said,
we
tended
some
time
in
front
of
the
Heritage,
Board
and
I
believe
that
order
is
specifically
listed
for
your
reference
on
slide
number
three
here,
but
the
board
approved
it
both
ways
for
the
consideration
of
this
board.
This
board
has
the
ability
to
approve
a
six
foot
fence,
which
is
what
we
would
prefer.
H
Alternatively,
to
the
extent
that
this
board
does
not
allow
that
we
have
already
gotten
prior
approval
from
the
Heritage
Board
to
accept
a
smaller
size
fence.
So
we
didn't
have
to
go
back
to
the
Heritage
Board
again.
What
we're
asking
the
board
tonight
is
is
to
approve
the
application
I've
written,
which
is
the
six
foot
fence,
based
as
it's
described
there
in
red,
which
I
think
the
city
made
a
good
outline
for.
Additionally,
the
purple
is
wood,
which
is
on
the
side.
A
H
A
Thank
you,
as
Miss
Keane
very
clearly
stated,
there
is
the
potential
for
this
being
a
visibility
issue
and,
as
you
said
and
I
think
we
all
can
agree.
This
does
certainly
look
like
a
costly
project
and
if
we
were
to
move
forward
with
an
approval,
that's
an
if
and
if
there
was
a
criteria
stating
with
the
contingency
of
you
know
Public
Safety
review.
If,
if
there
was
an
issue,
just
want
to
make
sure
and
hear
from
you
that
you're
at
your
client
is
aware
of
that
as
comfortable
with
something
like
that.
So.
H
That
was
going
to
lead
me
to
the
next
Point
Madam
chair
here,
that
we
object
to
that
specific
language
in
the
order
and
I'll
tell
you
why.
First
off
we
have
and
I
believe
someone
is
here
this
evening
we
have
pretty
contentious,
neighbors
and
I'm,
not
calling
out
anybody
specifically
that
just
don't
care
for
this
project
at
all
from
head
to
toe,
and
we
believe
that,
having
that
language
in
there
codified
by
the
board,
would
open
this
up
to
a
Judicial,
Challenge
and
potentially
destroy
the
entire
project
in
the
alternative.
H
I
feel
very
comfortable
with
the
police
being
able
to
do
one
of
two
things.
One
code
enforcement,
even
after
this
board
approves,
could
demand
a
modification
to
that
right.
Additionally,
Florida
statute
would
allow
a
citation
for
the
visibility
triangle
against
my
client
that
the
police
could
bring
on
their
own.
H
So
we
we
would
ask
the
board
to
strike
that
specific
language
I,
don't
believe
that
it's
necessary
I
I,
respect
it
and
obviously
my
client
is
willing
to
do
whatever
he
can
to
make
it
a
safe
environment,
we're
open
to
suggestions,
but
that
language,
I,
believe
kind
of
puts
us
in
a
rough
position
where
the
totality
of
this
project
could
be
challenged
by
a
court
and,
quite
frankly,
we're
not
interested
in
fighting
that
battle,
and
it
has
been
very
contentious
between
the
neighbors
and
we've
tried
to
be
very
accommodating
so
that
that's
one
specific
thing
that
I'm
asking
and
I
you
know
I
would
defer
to
the
city
attorneys.
H
So
what
her
position
is
on,
if
that
could
even
be
issued
in
the
order.
But
that's
between
yeah.
C
I
C
That
is
correct,
however,
it
is
in
the
draft.
That's
before
you,
so
your
motion
would
be
the
approval
of
the
proposed
order.
I
guess
it
is,
and
without
any
additional
conditions.
H
G
I
mean
I
totally
get
where
you're
coming
from,
but
I
saw
this
as
a
no
harm,
no
foul
give
them
the
six
foot,
because
while
they
it's
in
writing
that
it
can
be
fixed
if
it's
a
problem,
but
now
it's
complicated.
So
if
we
don't
put
that
language
in
and
it's
a
problem,
then
what
I'm
asking
the
city
and
the
attorney
well.
C
E
C
Nothing
in
there,
then
code
would
be
enforcing
what
you
approve
and
there's
no
condition
there.
G
C
Well,
if
you
fix
the
applicant,
has
complied
with
the
with
the
approval
that
you've
granted
I,
don't
believe
that
there
would
be
a
code
violation
there.
H
C
Agree,
but
those
are
different
facts
than
what's
currently
before
the
board,
so
right
now
before
the
board
is
the
situation
where
there
is
no
obstruction.
So
in
that
situation
you
wouldn't
need
any
additional
language.
I
think
what
he
suggested
and
which
could
very
well
occur,
is
perhaps
overgrowth
of
some
plants
or
some
other
thing
that
could
happen.
That
could
create
an
obstruction
to
the
visibility
at
which
point
code
enforcement
would
then
come
forward
and
address
that
situation.
G
H
That's
it
so!
No!
No,
let
me
revamp
this.
It's
on
that
language
is
unduly
burdensome
to
us
as
the
applicant,
because
it
presents
another
set
of
problems
which
is
a
Judicial
challenge
to
this
board's
decision.
Based
on
that,
if
this
board,
which
is
what
I
recommend,
approves
the
six
foot
fence,
should
they
have
issues,
there's
nothing
that
I
can
do
to
prevent
the
code
enforcement
from
going
out
there
and
taking
a
look.
H
We
gladly
have
that
happen
and
if
we're
in
violation,
we'd
cure
that
my
objection
is,
is
that
the
language
that
the
city
proposes
opens
up
to
a
Judicial
challenge
which
can
be
easily
shut
off
by
you
guys
not
adding
that
language
into
your
specific
order
right,
so
the
code
enforcement
will
always
exist
and
we
plan
to
comply
with
that.
Of
course,
that's
that's
our
intention,
but
having
the
additional
language
causes
an
undue
burden
on
the
applicant.
That's
the
position
that
we're
taking.
A
A
That's
from
the
from
the
vegetation
standpoint
of
a
potential
future
safety
site
triangle
issue
that
could
be
with
or
without
offense,
with
or
without
you
even
being
here
before
with
this
particular
aspect
of
the
project,
if
that
makes
sense
to
y'all
a
thought
I
had
because
we
appreciate
the
city
staff
with
the
language,
you
know
suggestion
and
I
thought
I
understand
the
spirit
of
where
you're
going
of
saying.
If
this
is
becomes
a
safety
issue,
then
this
needs
to
be
brought
back.
A
That's
why
I
then
asked
the
applicant's
representative?
That's
a
pretty
pricey!
You
know,
given
this
material
gamble
for
everyone
to
take,
we
don't
like
writing
changes
on
the
Fly.
However,
we
do
have
the
opportunity
to
entertain
putting
a
contingency
in
maybe
that
contingency
references
with
the
requirement
to
have
code
enforcement,
Public
Safety,
because
we
know
code
enforcement
falls
under
our
Police
Department,
who
is
Public
Safety?
How
Public
Safety
review
the
site
area
prior
to
it?
Go
because
it
goes
to
TRC.
H
Next,
no
so
we've
actually
been
a
TRC,
and
in
that
TRC
meeting
we've
had
discussions
and
and
Miss
King
can
allege
to
that
regarding
the
police
and
they
they
saw
no
issue
with
it
at
that
time
period.
In
fact,
before
we
came
before
this
board,
there
was
a
moderate
alteration
that
we
made
and
we
resubmitted
the
application
to
miss
Keane.
It
wasn't
a
problem
so.
A
H
A
D
H
Madam
chair
I'd
like
to
strike
him
for
bias
based
on
the
prior
experiences
that
was
given
before
us
I
believe.
Even
with
three,
we
still
have
a
quorum.
H
Based
on
the
prior
indication
that
he
had
an
accident
at
that
specific
site,
I
believe
he's
biased
towards
the
application
in
the
process.
He's
made
multiple
comments
that
would
put
my
client
in
a
detriment.
C
C
Your
you
can
keep
your
objection
on
the
record,
but
I
don't
know
that
that's
a
valid
basis
to
prohibit
him
from
voting
I.
H
Would
just
I
would
like
to
State
my
objection
formally
on
the
record.
Additionally,
his
last
comment
of
my
experience
doesn't
count
should
show
to
the
bias
that
he
has
he's
bringing
in
external
factors
that
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
application
and
making
a
voting
decision
based
upon
that,
and
that
is
detrimental
to
my
client
and
he
should
be
struck
from
the
vote.
Just
as
Miss
Simon
recused
herself,
you
should
be
recused
or
the
board
should
vote
to
remove
him
from
voting.
C
Okay,
I
will
ask
again
based.
D
A
And
and
I
I
do
understand,
Mr
worse,
you
know
what
you
are
referencing
and
again
us
remembering
the
purpose
and
the
criteria
of
what
we
are
looking
at
versus.
What
we
are
not.
We
are
whether
we
agree
or
disagree.
We
are
not
in
the
position
to
make
decisions
and
vote
on
things
regarding
Landscaping
in
this
sense,
we're
looking
purely
at
the
fence
itself.
I.
C
C
I
believe
what
he's
proposing
is
somewhat
of
a
compromise
to
address
the
visibility
concerns
that
have
been
expressed,
that
there
would
not
be
the
language
that
staff
has
suggested,
but
language
stating
that
the
Landscaping
would
not
subject
to
Landscaping,
not
impeding
the
line
of
sight
and
the
visibility
triangle.
H
I
would
have
no
problem
with
a
specific
height
criteria
that
isn't
right
for
a
Judicial
challenge
that
would
be
subjective,
I
think
that's
very
objective
and
we
have
no
objection
to
that
type
of
language
because
it's
a
specific
height,
it's
either
three
feet
or
less,
and
it's
very
easy
to
measure.
So
no
objection
to
that
Madam,
chair
and.
C
A
The
board's
consideration,
but
we,
but
we
still
have
you,
know
the
procedure
to
continue
with
so
sir
and
I
do
apologize.
That
I
have
forgotten
your
name
but
or
we
do
have
the
requirement
that
we
will
be
asking
if
there's
anyone
present
who
would
like
to
engage
in
public
comment
but
hold
tight,
because
we
may
have
additional
questions
for
you
after
the
couple
I.
A
J
The
record
ma'am
yep,
Karen,
Gallagher,
33,
Central,
Court
and
I
actually
came
today
just
to
see
what
was
being
proposed
because
I
did
not
understand
all
of
the
variations
and
what
have
you
and
I'm
happy
to
see
that
it
is
an
aluminum,
picket
fence
and
not
a
solid
fence,
because
that
intersection
in
and
of
itself
is
not
a
super
safe
intersection
already
my
request.
J
My
suggestion
is
by
leaving
the
city
staff
in
if
you
could
just
go
back,
that
that
little
caveat
where
the
city
staff
recommended
that
in
the
future
should
that
become
a
safety
issue
that
it
will
be
mitigated.
I
think
is
important
to
leave
in
there
because
and
I.
Don't
know
that
the
applicant
should
necessarily
have
an
issue
with
that.
If
the
police
and
fire
chief
have
already
come
by
and
said,
they
don't
feel
it's
an
issue
then,
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
it
shouldn't
be
an
issue.
J
However,
if
it
does
become
an
issue,
it
leaves
no
room
for
them
to
mitigate
that.
It
leaves
leaves
us
to
me.
It
leaves
the
city
no
way
to
come
in
and
mitigate
that
and
change
that
should
it
become
an
issue
in
the
future.
So
that's
my
biggest
concern.
I'm,
the
the
fence,
the
aluminum,
six
foot,
aluminum
fence,
I,
don't
necessarily
see
that
being
just
you
know
a
distraction
to
traffic
pattern
or
what
have
you
or
safety
issue?
Should
it
become
a
safety
issue?
Should
there
become
more
more
of
a
problem?
J
I
think
that
in
the
future,
if
it
leaves
you
no
way
to
mitigate
that,
then
we're
then
we're
stuck
with
that
being
a
safety
issue.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you,
Miss
calorie
yeah
I
understand
those
yellow
signs
that
pop
up
on
a
house
in
your
neighborhood
can
be
concerning
so
I
appreciate
you
taking
your
time
tonight
to
come
out
and
to
learn
those
details.
A
If,
if
I
may
ask
just
for
clarification
from
City
staff
and
our
attorney,
if
God
forbid
in
the
future,
the
fence
itself
again,
we've
already
addressed
the
Landscaping
situation.
If
the
fence
itself,
as
Miss
Gallagher
was
stating,
does
become
an
issue.
That
is
something
whether
we
put
something
in
this
approval
or
not.
C
C
And
then
the
code
process
would
take
over
the
code
process
could
result
in
a
fine,
but
it
could
also
result
in
a
requirement
to
mitigate
I
think
that
word's
been
used,
remove
the
fence,
relocate
the
fence
that
creates
a
risk
on
the
property
owner
to
make
sure
that
that
area
is
maintained
and
that
the
the
visibility
triangle
is
not
obstructed.
So.
A
C
Okay,
the
language
that
I
did
here
was
the
landscaping
and
that,
as
the
attorneys
pointed
out,
is
very
objective,
which
would
be
any
any
Landscaping
in
that
area
shall
not
exceed,
and
then
you'll
have
a
a
specific
number
and
that
could
be
measured
and
that
will
assist
with
making
sure
that
the
visibility
issue
is
not
violated.
A
Okay
and
in
regards
to
that
specific
height,
as
the
attorney
is
stating
that
we
need
to
have
Can
the
city
staff
refresh
my
memory,
I
wrote
down
here
three
to
eight
inch
foot
height
limit.
It's.
A
C
The
sixth
conditions,
with
the
condition
that
any
Landscaping
adjacent
to
the
fence,
shall
not
exceed
three
feet,
not.
A
B
I
E
H
F
No,
the
only
thing
that
I'll
I'll
say
is
I
know
that
people
were
inquiring.
If
we've
had
some
applicants
to
join
the
board
of
adjustments,
I
believe
that
we
there
are
some
that
have
applied
or
suggested
they
would
be
interested,
but
I'm,
not
sure
about
timing
of
when
that
would
be
and
I
don't
know
what
you
need
to
talk
to
the
clerk
Mr
robotsky.
I
B
A
Well,
how
does
that
and
all
says
this
could
be
a
question
for
City
staff
and
or
our
attorney,
where
we
currently
have
four
regular
seats
and
one
alternate
thank
you
Miss
Simon.
So
if
Mr
robowski
steps
down,
we
will
we'll
only
have
three
regular
and
an
alternate
until
the
city
commission
moves
forward
with.
Hopefully
these
applications,
but.
C
Quorum,
you
can
continue,
however,
I
believe
that
you
offer
the
applicant
the
opportunity
to
delay
a
resolution
or
a
decision
on
the
application
until
a
full
board
is
seated.
Okay,.
A
A
F
G
A
Kind
of
goes
into
board
comment.
My
question
is
going
to
be:
yes,
we're
excited
that
there
are
potential
new
board
members.
However,
as
we
all
know,
sitting
on
this
board,
there's
a
steep
learning
curve
with
the
information
of
how
it's
presented,
what
we're
looking
at
the
criteria,
an
opportunity
for
some
training
with
the
new
incoming
board
members,
but.
C
She
said,
there's
a
board
of
adjustment
meeting
and
you
will
be
there
and
so
I'm
here.
But
honestly
I
do
understand
that
our
firm
will
be
assisting
the
city
at
this
time
on
an
interim
basis
providing
legal
services
to
the
board
of
adjustment
to
the
Heritage
Board,
as
well
as
the
planning
board
and
other
than
that.
I
am
not
aware
of
any
trainings
that
we're
doing
or
anything
of
that
nature.
F
And
we
have
from
from
the
staff
perspective,
we've
had
some
new
members
joining
our
Planning
and
Zoning
Board
here
at
this
preservation
board,
and
we
started
to
do
kind
of
a
little
kind
of
Welcome
Aboard
training
session
with
them,
and
so
I
intend
to
do
the
same
with
future
board
of
adjustment
members
too.
Just
so
they
are
aware
of
what
criteria
is
the
types
of
applications
in
the
process,
so
we
do
kind
of
a
mini
training
on
our
end,
okay,.
A
Thank
you
so
much
yeah,
because
it's
It's
Tricky
yeah,
as
we
all
know
and
I
I
would
love
to
you
know,
volunteer
my
services
for
that,
but
then
I
know.
Then
we
start
getting
into
Sunshine.
Because
now
you
have,
you
know
two
board
members
and
announcements
and
Etc
so
I.
A
Class
in
the
past,
any
other
board
comments
for
us
this
evening.