![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/phRRF1i_QXk/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments 8-24-2022
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).
A
B
A
C
Yes,
ma'am
and
before
we
get
to
the
quasi-judicial
announcement,
just
for
everybody's
knowledge,
tonight's
panel
will
consist
of
three
members
of
the
board
of
adjustments
instead
of
the
usual
five.
That
means
that
a
unanimous
vote
of
the
panel
would
be
necessary
for
any
kind
of
decision,
so
any
applicant
does
have
the
right
to
request
that
their
application
be
heard
by
a
panel.
That
does
not
require
a
unanimous
decision
does
any
applicant
here.
C
I
wish
to
pull
their
application
from
tonight's
agenda
and
have
it
rescheduled,
seeing
none
I'll
go
ahead
and
explain
the
quasi-judicial
procedures.
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
where
the
board
acts
in
a
quasi-judicial,
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity
that
cause
our
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.
C
The
board
is
required
by
law
to
make
findings
a
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.
Importantly,
the
board
may
only
consider
evidence
at
this
hearing
that
the
law
considers
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
to
the
issues.
A
A
C
C
A
Thank
you.
So
if
we
can
actually
with
our
mr
simon,
if
anyone
wishes
to
speak
tonight,
of
course,
whether
as
a
an
applicant
or
someone
who
wants
to
express
their
concerns
one
way
or
the
other
about
any
applications,
if
you
could
please
stand
and
raise
your
right
hand,
and
our
counsel
will
swear
you
in
yes,.
C
A
Okay,
so
let's
move
on
to
application
number
22-72,
which
is
a
variance
to
reduce
the
required
front
and
rear
yard
setbacks
and
to
allow
non-conforming
lots
of
record
to
be
built
upon
for
the
purpose
of
constructing
two
single
family
homes
at
the
location.
The
south
side
of
division
street
approximately
176
feet
west
of
the
athens
street
intersection
lots,
number,
nine
and
10..
D
Okay,
allie
keene,
with
the
planning
and
zoning
again.
This
application
is
located
on
the
south
side
of
division
street.
It's
outlined
here
in
yellow
on
the
screen.
This
property,
as
well
as
all
surrounding
properties
in
the
immediate
area,
are
zoned
r-60,
which
is
a
one
and
two
family
residential
zoning
district.
There
is
some
general
and
intensive
business
zoning
along
athens
street
to
the
east,
and
this
property
is
approximately
a
block
and
a
half
from
the
city
special
area
plan,
which
is
the
gray
shown
on
this
map.
D
The
applicants
are
here
tonight
requesting
two
different
requests.
The
first
is
in
regards
to
non-conforming
lots
of
record
the
land
development
code
states
that
if,
at
any
time
the
owner
of
a
non-conforming
lot
of
record
owns
adjoining
land,
the
lots
shall
be
combined
to
meet
the
minimum
lot
requirements.
D
This
property
was
originally
plotted
as
two
separate
lots.
The
applicant
is
here
today
asking
the
board
to
recognize
the
historic
plotted
lot
configuration
which
is
shown
here
in
the
image
as
lots,
9
and
10,
and
has
two
separate
buildable
lots.
They
are
also
requesting
a
reduced
front
yard
setback
from
10
feet
or
210
feet.
As
opposed
to
the
required
20
feet
and
they're
also
requesting
a
reduced
rear
yard
setback
of
5
feet
as
opposed
to
20
feet,
one
point
of
clarification
is
originally
the
applicant
did
request
a
rear
yard
setback
of
10
feet.
D
The
revision
does
not
necessarily
impact
staff's
recommendation,
and
I
did
update
this
presentation
tonight
to
reflect
the
five
foot
setback
and
the
purpose
for
these
requests
is
for
the
allowance
to
construct
a
new
single-family
home
on
each
of
the
lots
for
the
first
request:
the
non-conforming
lot
again.
This
property
is
in
the
r-60
zoning
district.
The
minimum
lot
area
for
a
plotted
lot
that
was
plotted
prior
to
the
current
land
development
code.
Going
into
effect
is
5
000
square
feet.
D
D
It's
important
to
note
that
both
of
these
lots
do
meet
the
and
exceed
the
minimum
lot
width
along
the
street,
and
there
is
no
depth
requirement
for
the
r-60
zoning
district,
so
they're
only
non-conforming
in
terms
of
lot
area
a
little
bit
of
site
history.
These
lots
were
originally
plotted
back
in
1914
as
lots.
9
and
10
of
the
ib
reads:
tarpon
heights
plot.
D
This
predates
any
sort
of
formal
zoning
requirements
in
the
city,
the
in
1944,
the
first
land
development
code
went
into
effect.
This
property
was
zoned
r1,
which
required
a
minimum
lot
area
of
5
000
square
feet.
So
at
that
time
of
the
initial
adoption
of
zoning
requirements,
these
lots
became
legally
non-conforming
because
they
were
smaller
than
the
required
5000
square
feet.
D
There
was
a
existing
single-family
home
that
was
constructed
on
the
property.
It
was
on
lot
nine
that
home
was
demolished
back
in
2008
and
in
terms
of
common
ownership
based
on
information
on
the
property
appraisers
site
as
well
as
according
to
the
applicant.
It
appears
that
both
lots,
9
and
10
have
been
under
common
ownership,
since
they
were
originally
plotted
again
that
predates
the
common
ownership
provision
and
the
current
land
development
code.
D
They
are
also
requesting
reduced
front
and
rear
yard
setbacks.
The
r-60
zoning
district
requires
a
front
yard
setback,
minimum
for
the
house
of
20
feet
and
a
minimum
front
yard
setback
for
a
garage
of
25
feet.
It
requires
a
minimum
rear
yard
setback
of
20
feet
again.
They
are
proposing
a
front
yard
setback
of
10
feet
and
a
proposed
rear
yard
of
five
feet,
and
this
image
is
just
portraying
a
conceptual
lot
layout
that
was
provided
by
the
applicant.
D
D
We
did
a
visual
overview
and
survey
of
the
property
from
aerial
photographs
as
well,
as
did
some
approximate
measurements
from
aerial
photography.
To
give
you
some
ideas
of
how
the
development
pattern
is
on
that
street,
the
front
yards
for
properties
on
division,
street
range
between
12
feet
and
53
foot
setbacks.
It
has
an
average
of
16
foot
setbacks
along
this
street
and
then,
when
looking
at
the
properties
as
well,
the
rear
yards
for
these
pro
for
a
lot
of
the
lots
are
typically
more
minimal.
D
In
this
area.
We
also
looked
at
the
typical
home
depths
along
division
street.
They
range
between
36
feet
and
72
feet
in
depth,
with
an
average
of
approximately
50
feet,
and
if
the
r-60
setbacks,
as
they
are
written
in
the
code,
were
required,
it
would
allow
for
a
home
on
these
lots
approximately
45
feet
in
depth.
If
they
basically
took
up
the
entire
buildable
area.
D
There's
a
few
land
development
code
considerations
with
this
application.
The
first
is
section
25.03
e3
in
terms
of
the
garage
setback
in
the
r-60
zoning
district,
specifically
in
this
zoning
district
front,
loaded,
garage
or
garages
are
required
to
have
a
minimum
front
setback
of
25
feet.
The
intent
of
this
provision
is
to
prevent
any
vehicle
that
may
be
parked
in
a
driveway
from
overhanging,
a
sidewalk
or
even
projecting
into
the
street.
D
D
Another
consideration
of
the
code
is
section
38,
which
is
yard
encroachments.
This
section
provides
for
various
allowances
for
certain
structures
to
encroach
or
go
into
a
required
setback.
One
particular
that
could
apply
to
this
situation
is
an
unenclosed
front.
Porch
is
able
to
be
able
to
encroach
up
to
10
feet
into
a
required
front
yard.
D
E
I
have
a
question
on
page
two
of
the
non-conforming
lot
of
record
variants.
It
shows
that
the
minimum
led
area
is
six
thousand
square
feet,
and
yet
you
showed
up
there
five
thousand
square
feet.
Why
is
the
difference.
D
Yes,
so
the
r60
zoning
district
has
has
two
allowances.
Typically,
r60
requires
a
minimum
six
thousand
square
foot.
However,
the
code
has
an
allowance
for
lots
that
were
platted
before
the
code
was,
in
effect,
can
be
a
minimum
of
five
thousand
square
feet.
So
that's
where
the
5000
is.
E
D
Believe
one
of
th,
that's
the
affidavit.
I
believe
one
of
them
is
the
property
owner,
and
one
of
them
is
the
applicant.
A
D
To
our
knowledge,
we
we
looked
back
at
the
old
sanborn
maps
to
see
we
tried
to
get
an
idea.
We
saw
a
demolition
permit
in
2008
for
the
existing
home
sanborn
maps.
We
went
far
back
as
1926
and
we
saw
the
one
home
on
lot
nine,
but
nothing
on
lot
10..
So
I
believe
there's
only
been
one
on
that
property.
A
Okay
and
it's
on
the
aerial
of
the
schematically
wanted
for
the
benefit
of
attendees,
so
how
you
had
said
that
the
application
has
since
changed
to
now
have
a
proposed
the
requested
five
foot,
rear
setback
and,
of
course,
this
I
understand
you
had
to
adjust.
This
did
what
brought
about
going
from.
Then,
where
did
that
five
feet
go
from
where
we're
looking
at
in
our
packet
here
did
the
depth
of
the
proposed
structure
change
or
was
it
a
measuring
issue?
What
happened
here.
D
So
I
believe,
after
talking
with
the
applicant,
their
thought
was
with
the
garage.
Instead
of
having
it
right
at
the
street
and
front
loading,
they
could
potentially
put
it
towards
the
back,
maybe
side
load
or
rear
load.
So
the
additional
five
feet
allows
them
more
flexibility
to
do
so.
It
did
not
change
their
requests
for
the
10
feet
just
for
the
five
feet.
They
did
not
provide
an
updated
conceptual
lot
layout.
For
that.
A
Revision,
so
those
are
probably
some
questions
about
the
rear
versus
front
load
of
the
garage
options
that
the
applicant
could
potentially
provide
us.
Some,
I
think
some
details
on
okay.
I
appreciate
that
and
if
I
don't
know
if
this
is
a
question
for
you
or
the
applicant,
but
what
is
the
proposed
depth
of
the
structure?
A
A
At
that's,
where
you
got
your
45
foot
gotcha
and
the
when
you're
talking
about
section
38.00,
the
yard
encroachments,
so
talking
about
you
know
being
familiar
with.
You
know
walking
and
bicycling
in
that
area.
What
are
when
you're
talking
about
the
unenclosed
front
porches,
I
feel
like
I
have
seen
that
kind
of
structure
around
in
that
area.
What
are
what
are
examples
of
that.
D
D
I
think
I'll
have
to
look
up
what
the
percentage
is,
but
it
can't
be
screened
in
it's
just
a
front
porch
gotcha,
but
it
does
allow
for
a
front
porch
that
has
a
roof
over
here.
A
E
D
There
are
certain
requirements:
the
code
for
tree
plantings,
obviously
there's
any
trees
removed.
They
have
to
comply
with
any
sort
of
tree
mitigation
requirements
of
our
code.
That
is
all
verified
during
the
building
permit
stage,
but
they
again
I'll
defer
the
applicant
if
they
have
any
plans
for
additional
landscaping.
A
Okay,
so
at
this
time,
if
we
can
have,
if
the
applicant
is
present
or
representative
of
the
applicant
to
come
and
present
information.
A
And
sir,
I
apologize,
I
don't
know
if
you
were
sworn
in
earlier.
Okay,
if
you
could
please.
C
A
So
did
you
have
any
information
that
you
wanted
to
present.
B
Well,
I
just
heard
a
little
bit
of
what
the
lady
read
there
regarding
the
size.
I
think
you
asked
about
the
size
of
the
of
the
structure.
The.
B
And
I
I
cannot
answer
that
question
I
don't
I
don't
have
that
information
with
me.
I
don't
believe,
there's
any
detail
on
that,
because
this
was
something
that
was
we
sent
in
to
try
it's
it's
a
suggested
design.
We
know
that
you
know
we
may
get
an
approval
we
may
not.
We
may
have
to
adjust
accordingly.
A
Okay,
well
perhaps
maybe
if
you
could
expand
upon
the
information
that
ms
keane
had
mentioned
regarding
the
garage
front
versus
rear
loading
options,
as
that
would
based
upon
the
the
staff
report,
would
have
a
potential
impact
on
the
front
variants.
B
So
that
was
the
idea
with
that
get
away
from
having,
I
believe
you
all
call
it
term
front
loading
with
the
with
the
garage
and
it
coming
to
the
rear.
So
that
would
be
like
a
common.
I
believe
it
was
an
idea
was
the
common
driveway,
I
think
through
the
center,
and
I'm
not
positive
on
that
to
be
able
to
get
back
into
the
garage.
A
B
E
E
D
I
believe
this
is
the
sidewalk
right
here.
Typically,
the
sidewalk
just
for
clarification,
is
constructed
within
the
public
right-of-way,
so
the
setbacks
are
measured
from
your
property
line,
which
would
be
on
the
other
side
of
the
the
sidewalk.
If
there
is
not
a
sidewalk
in
front
of
this
property,
that
has
a
requirement
for
the
applicant
to
construct
a
sidewalk
and
that's
verified
again
at
the
building
permit
stage.
A
D
Believe
it
on
local,
it's
probably
four
feet:
okay,
so
you're.
D
The
so
again
the
sidewalk
is
typically
in
the,
so
this
yellow
line
is
generally,
the
property
line
is
a
sidewalk
is
constructing
the
public
right-of-way,
which
is
on
the
other
side.
So.
A
D
Swath
of
bra
I'll
pull
it
up
and
I'll
verify.
If
you
want
to
keep
asking
questions
I'll,
pull
it
up
on
google,
okay,.
A
Mr
robowsky
any
questions
of
the
applicant,
I
have
a
feeling
that
we
probably
will
be
coming
back
and
forth
from
miss
keene
and
the
applicant
representative
to
get
some
questions
and
clarifications
here
so
hold
tight
for
us.
Don't
go
anywhere
so
at
this
time.
If
there
are
any
public
comment,
if
anyone
would
like
to
come
and
speak
about
this
application,
please
come
to
the
podium
and
if
you
haven't
been
sworn
in.
G
G
This
lady,
whose
name
I
missed,
I'm
sorry,
did
say
that
if
any
time
the
owner
of
such
non-conforming
lots
owns
two
adjoining
lots,
then
they
shall
be
combined
to
meet
the
minimum
standards
of
the
code,
which
has
been
in
effect
for
these
properties.
For
quite
a
long
time
since
the
original
house
was
built,
the
original
one
house
was
built
on
lot
nine
in
1914,
I
believe
you
said,
or
perhaps
that
was
when
they
were
planted.
G
The
lots,
according
to
current
code,
are
required
to
have
5
000
square
feet
because
of
when
they
were
platted.
Neither
has
that
one
is
4579
square
feet.
The
other
is
4329
square
feet,
calculated
from
the
survey
that
was
provided
with
the
application.
G
The
houses
themselves
calculated
from
the
next
slide
over,
which
is
granted
a
rough
plot
plan.
The
house
on
the
western
lot
lot.
9
is
estimated
to
cover
2735
square
feet
of
the
lot,
which
is
60
percent
of
the
lot
on
lot
10.
The
hound
that's
proposed,
for
that
is
estimated
to
cover
2532
square
feet,
which
is
59
of
the
lot
on
division
street.
The
average
square
foot
of
coverage
of
the
lots
is
20
2029
square
feet,
which
is
just
under
30
percent
of
the
lot
coverage.
G
There
are
some
very
large
old
trees
on
these
two
lots
right
now
with
an
open
lot
and
it's
sand
the
water
percolates
through
it.
When
we
get
a
lot
of
rain
and
we
get
a
lot
of
rain,
as
you
know
better
than
I
probably
apparently,
there
has
been
an
ongoing
issue
at
the
corner
of
athens
and
division
street
with
runoff.
G
F
F
It
would
add
a
lot
more
cars
on
the
street.
I've
been
hit
twice
on
division
street,
which
is
a
very
narrow
street.
To
begin
with,
I've
actually
seen
the
waste
management
side
swipe
a
car,
so
it's
a
very
narrow
street
and
adding
two
homes
with
2
000
square
feet
or
or
1800
square
feet
with
you
know,
multiple
families
there's
probably
going
to
be
an
additional
four
to
six
vehicles
that
are
going
to
be
parking
on
that
street.
F
There's
also
a
big
issue
with
the
plan
as
far
as
if
they
do,
they
were
talking
about
how
they
would
load
vehicles
into
the
properties
if
they
were
to
park
off
the
street.
That's
a
little
bit
of
a
concern.
If
there's
enough
room
again,
we
eliminate
more
street
parking
that
that's
an
issue
and
also
the
front
set
the
the
rear
set
backs
and
the
side
setbacks
the
front
set
back.
F
F
I
didn't
see
anything
that
was
remotely
close
to
10
feet,
so
these
two
homes
would
project
out
past
the
frontage
of
all
the
other
homes
on
the
street
on
both
sides
of
the
street
by
at
least
10
feet,
which
of
course,
would
not
be
appealing
in
the
neighborhood
and
that's
all
I
have
to
say.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
B
And
not
have
it
five
feet
from
the
sidewalk
and
you
could
look
at
the
homes
on
there
too.
They
they
do.
Look
like
they're,
at
least
you
know
15
feet
back.
I
didn't
measure
any
of
them,
but
they
do
look
further
back.
I
was
just
at
the
property
there
today,
so
the
concern
would
be
the
parking
and
you
could
see
in
that
picture.
There's
probably
four
cars
parked
at
the
corner
there
already
and
it
just
will
make
both
corners.
Have
cars
parked
there
so
we'll
just
have
the
whole
street
with
parked
vehicles.
A
H
H
You
so
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
a
lot
of
information
about
the
property,
because
it
seems
like
some
of
the
information
isn't
really
what
it
is.
A
lot
of
those
trees
that
you
see
there
are
trees
growing
from
the
other
house,
they're,
not
growing
from
the
inside
of
the
yard.
H
The
only
tree
that's
on
there
is
probably
about
20
years
old,
and
that
was
there
when
I
lived
there
about
20
years
ago.
It
was
this
big,
so
these
are
trees
that
have
been
there
forever
and
a
day.
A
lot
of
them
are
new
and
the
ones
that
are
cropping
up
in
the
yard
are
the
new
ones,
the
ones
that
are
on
the
other
side
of
the
driveway,
where
the
fence
is
that
goes
into
the
other
property.
H
That's
where
the
trees
are.
So
it's
not
quite
as
responsible
for
climate
change,
as
we
like
to
think
so.
The
water
that
goes
down
from
the
road
all
over
athens
street
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
trees
that
are
on
division
street.
It
has
to
do
with
the
fact
that
the
property
on
division
street
is
at
one
of
the
highest
points
that
there
is
in
all
of
the
sponge
docs
area.
That's
one
of
the
few
properties
that
really
doesn't
require
insurance,
because
it
will
never
flood
because
it's
at
the
highest
point.
H
H
The
house
that
we
were
in
was
practically
right
on
the
top
of
the
house
that
was
next
to
us,
like
we
were
within
hands
reach
to
grab
each
other,
so
this
variants
that
everyone's
talking
about
these
giant
houses
that
everyone's
imagining,
I
really
don't
see
it
happening.
What
I
see
happening
is
some
normal,
looking
houses.
H
H
H
There's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
excuses
were
made
for
a
lot
of
people
to
build
a
lot
of
beautiful
places
down
there,
and
so
I
really
just
don't
understand
why.
After
all
these
years,
we've
had
this
property,
not
a
one
person
has
ever
come
up
and
said.
Let
me
buy
that
property
from
you,
I'm
interested
in
your
property,
not
a
one
person
has
called
me
or
my
mother
to
maybe
even
discuss
any
of
the
problems
they
have
with
all
this
stuff.
H
No
one
has
contacted
us
at
all
and
some
people
here
I
know
well,
and
they
know
I'm
talking
about
and
they
didn't
do
me
well
as
a
realtor,
and
I
think
that
one
person
ought
to
really
apologize
to
us
and
I
don't
really
just
let
things
happen
because
they
had
a
chance
to
buy
it.
Other
people
had
a
chance
to
buy
it,
and
the
only
person
that
really
came
through
with
a
contract
is
leon.
A
A
B
May
I
suggest,
since
mr
schmidt
spoke
and
he
submitted
a
letter
to
the
city.
Thank
you.
This
person,
lois
barth,
apparently
hasn't
had
a
chance
to
speak.
Would
you
mind
at
least
reading
this
into
the
record.
A
I
certainly
can
I
can
read
that
into
the
record.
We
do
have
one
more
public
comment.
I
I
will.
Can
I
steal
that
from
you.
H
C
B
My
716
north
distant
avenue
here
in
tarpon
springs
my
mother-in-law
owned,
553
division
street.
Until
recently,
last
january,
when
she
passed,
we
just
did
sell
the
house
to
the
new
owner
this
property-
I
did-
was
interested
in
purchasing
this
property.
B
We
did
talk
to
the
owner
at
one
point
about
purchasing
it,
but
the
purchase
price
was
too
much.
We
were
looking
to
put
a
conforming
house
on
that
property,
a
single
house
to
do
that.
So
we
have
had
interest
in
that
property.
It
was
just
the
property
price
was
too
much,
so
I
wanted
to
establish
that
first
that
there
has
been
interest
in
the
in
the
sale
of
that
property.
B
The
second
thing
is
you
asked
about
the
the
sidewalk.
There
is
a
sidewalk
on
that
side
of
the
property.
There
is
a
small
grass,
I
believe
grass
setback
of
probably
about
a
foot,
then
the
sidewalk
then
another
part,
and
then
there's
a
brick
wall.
That's
still
existing
there
from
the
original
house.
I
did
also
want
to
say
that
those
houses
were
very
close
together.
B
B
If
you
get
anybody
having
a
birthday
party,
forget
it
there's
always
four
cars
parked
at
the
west
end
of
the
street.
There's
always
four
cars
parked
at
the
east
end
of
the
street
day
every
day.
That's
already
there,
that's
not
counting
for
any
deliveries.
If
you
get
a
delivery
truck
in
there
or
whatever,
I
don't
even
think
that
the
street
sweeper
comes
down
the
street
anymore,
because
they
just
don't
think
that
it's
effective
for
him
to
get
down
there
to
be
able
to
clean
the
street,
and
that
causes
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
problems.
C
So
did
you
state
your
name
into
the
record
before
you
put
your
address?
I
don't
know
thomas
galbeau.
Thank
you,
sir
appreciate
it.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and,
as
mr
herbalski
kindly
reminded
me,
we
did
have
an
email
submitted
as
a
public
comment.
So
if
I
may
read
this
into
the
record
for
everyone's
benefit,
this
is
from
lois
barth.
It
says
for
14
years
I
owned
a
house
on
reed
street
in
the
historic
area.
Tarpon
springs,
I
love
the
neighborhood
and
the
neighbor,
the
neighbors
and
the
neighborhood.
A
There
is
a
charm
and
comfort
in
the
area
that
attracts
those
who
desire
a
special
place
to
live
and
owners
who
will
treat
their
property
respectfully.
I
have
been
informed
of
a
request
to
rezone
two
lots
on
division
street
number:
nine
and
number
ten.
The
applicant
wants
to
build
two
houses
in
which,
in
what
appears
to
be
a
tight
space
by
reducing
the
front
and
rear
yard
setbacks.
A
A
I
presume
the
current
setback
rules
were
established
thoughtfully
and
for
good
reason,
so
why
make
an
exception
to
them
now,
when
now
in
this
one
instance,
it
could
set
a
precedence
for
building
other
houses
around
the
town
too
tightly
highly
high
density
living
is
not
desirable
in
the
eyes
of
many
who
would
be
attracted
to
living.
In
the
historic
area
of
note,
I
am
a
tax
paying
member
of
tarpon
springs.
A
A
B
E
Yes,
I
was
sworn
in
okay,
my
name
is
alex
beckel
I
live
at
5716.
E
Salt
springs
road,
that's
in
port
richey.
I
am
a.
I
grew
up
in
tarpon,
I'm
a
long
time
ex-resident
of
tarpon,
and
I
know
some
of
the
people
who
are
kind
of
opposed
to
this
project.
I
I
just
have
one
brief
comment.
It's
it's
kind
of
about
the
structure
that
was
there
before
the
owner
said
that
the
house
sat
on
the
property
in
a
way
that
isn't
much
different
than
what's
being
proposed
right
now.
E
I
was
on
google
maps
this
afternoon
and
if
there's
a
history,
where
you
can,
you
can
look
at
old
street
view
pictures.
E
So
if
you
go
back
to
2007,
which
is
the
first
street
view
picture,
you
can
see
the
way
the
original
house
sat
on
that
property
and
it
really
fits
the
the
look
of
the
road
it
sits
way
back.
It
sits,
probably
30
feet
back,
sits
further
back
than
most
of
the
houses
and
it
looks
like
it
belongs.
It
looks
like
it
conforms
to
the
road,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
can
bring
that
up
on
the
screen.
Just
so.
Everyone
can
see
what
was
there,
it
might
help
people
make
a
decision.
A
E
E
E
A
G
A
That
that
it
was
something
that
was
mentioned,
the
criteria
and
and
the
application
that
is
before
us.
It
is
very
specific
and
it
is
two
parts
one
is
to
the
front:
yard,
setback,
the
rear
yard
setback
and
allowing
construction
on
non-conforming
lots
of
records
when
it
starts
getting
into
the
details
of.
Is
it
one
story
or
two
story
or
pink
or
purple
or
those
sorts
of
things
that's
handled?
You
know
with
with
the
the
building
construction
department,
this
miss
keane
does
so
we're.
Here
we
have
a
very
specific
narrow
focus.
A
All
right
hold
on
last
call:
okay,
we
will
close
public
comment
and
I
I
and
now
let's
have
some
additional
questions
for
city
staff.
Mr
herbalski
and
I
have
some
as
well.
D
The
justification
from
the
applicant-
yes,
justification
from
the
applicant
was
basically
to
allow
to
construct
a
home
in
similar
size
and
format
and
layout
as
other
homes.
The
reduced
five
yard
or
five
foot
rear
yard
setback
was
to
allow
flexibility
to
potentially
move
a
garage
back
to
allow
for
further
setback,
potentially
more
parking
on
the
site.
But
I
would
defer
to
the
applicant
for
their
true
justifications.
B
Okay,
so
their
justification
is
that
they
could
help
with
parking
issues
by
having
this
variance
on
the
setback.
D
Well,
allowing
pushing
the
garage
back
will
prevent
the
issue
that
I
had
brought
up
in
my
presentation
about
having
a
shorter
driveway.
If
someone
parked
in
the
driveway
it
could
overhang
street
or
sidewalk
pushing
it
back,
allows
for
additional
parking
just
for
clarification
for
any
single
family
residential
property
in
the
city.
D
It
is
required
to
have
a
minimum
of
two
on-site
parking
spaces
for
a
single
family
residential
that
can
include
one
spot
in
a
garage
and
one
spot
in
front
in
the
driveway.
But
you
have
to
have
two
spots
on
the
property,
so
each
lot
would
have
to
accommodate
two
vehicles
just
for
clarification
on
parking,
so.
B
D
The
main
point
for
staff
bringing
up
the
garage
setback
is
the
r60
zoning
district
specifically
has
a
different
setback
requirement
for
a
front
loading
garage
so
that
additional
5
feet
to
25
foot
setback
allows
for
that
parking
in
the
driveway
staff
just
wanted
to
recommend.
If
the
board
chooses
to
approve
the
front
setback
variants
that
you
consider
potentially
not
applying
that
to
a
front
loading
garage.
D
Staff's
review
of
that
criteria,
please.
D
To
criteria
one
correct.
D
D
Staff's
review,
provisional
findings:
we
see
that
the
need
for
the
variance
is
due
to
the
lots
which
predate
the
city's
zoning
regulations
being
smaller
in
lot
area
than
that.
What
would
be
currently
required
under
the
current
zoning
requirements.
That
interpretation
basically
says
we're
looking
at
r60
as
a
district,
not
necessarily
just
this
area.
D
A
And
for
point
of
clarification
you
know
for
for
us
and
for
you
know
we're
usually
not
the
popular
board,
I
will
say
so
for
for
those
who've
taken
time
out
of
their
schedule
to
share
their
thoughts
and
concerns
on
this
project.
As
we
said,
we're
looking
at
multiple
things
here,
so
taking
first
with
the
non-conforming
lot
of
record,
can
you
explain
to
us
in
layman's
terms
what
makes
this
a
non-conforming
lot
sure.
D
It's
in
lot
area,
so
r60
zoning
requires
a
minimum
lot
area
of
5
000
square
feet,
because
each
of
these
lots
are
less
than
that.
That's
what
makes
it
non-conforming
because-
and
they
were
these-
are
historic.
Plotted
lots
they've
been
to
lots
from
the
time
of
planning.
However,
the
code
has
a
provision
about
common
ownership.
A
We're
recognizing
that
original
configuration
from
108
years
ago,
if
my
math
is
correct
right
so
108
years
ago,
of
course,
we
did
not
have
the
minimum
5
000
square
feet.
These
are
you
know
under
that
which
then,
by
definition,
makes
it
a
non-conforming
lot
of
record.
So,
given
that,
is
it
safe
to
assume?
A
A
D
B
D
But
I
didn't
do
a
full
analysis,
but
yes,
there
are
lots
just
to
the
north
they're,
all
pretty
damn
or
smaller.
So.
A
Some
are
smaller,
some
are
bigger,
it's
correct!
It's
it's
there
in
in
the
mix,
okay
and
mr
boris,
because
I.
D
Okay
criteria:
three:
okay,
so.
C
D
Again
I'll
read
from
the
staff
report
our
provisional
findings.
This
is
in
reference
to
criteria
3.
literal
enforcement
of
the
minimum
setback
requirements
would
result
in
homes
that
could
only
be
approximately
45
feet
deep
less
than
the
average
home
depth
for
other
properties
along
division
street.
The
reduced
rear
yard
setback
is
consistent
with
other
developed
properties
in
the
neighborhood
and
would
allow
for
the
home
to
be
constructed
that
is
incomparable
size
to
existing
homes
in
the
area
and
is
the
minimum
variance
necessary
to
make
reasonable
use
of
the
property.
D
However,
based
on
the
historic
development
pattern
of
the
neighborhood
and
yard,
encroachment
allowances
and
the
land
development
code,
staff
is
of
the
opinion
that
home
layouts
could
be
redesigned
to
have
a
larger
front
setback
that
is
more
comparable
to
the
surrounding
area,
based
on
the
evidence
up
and
available
by
the
time
this
report
was
prepared.
Staff
is
the
opinion
that
this
standard
is
met
or
has
not
been
met.
I'm
sorry
for
the
front
setback
variance,
but
it
has
been
met
for
the
rear
setback
variants.
A
So
and
that's
what
thanks
for
the
clarification,
and
if
I,
if
I
may,
what
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
you
know
like
I
said
this,
isn't
something
that
you
know
most
of
us
typically
encounter
every
day
as
to
what
exactly
we
as
a
board
are
presented
with
with
this
application.
What
we
are
voting
on,
what
we
can
consider,
what
we
cannot
consider,
there's
like
we
were
talking
about
before
there
is
this
nearly
defined
focus.
A
So
please,
you
know
miss
keene,
mr
simon,
stop,
halt
correct
me
when
I,
if
I
go
astray
here
so
what
I
like
to
do
is
if,
if
we
can
take
what
is
being
asked
of
us,
you
know
point
by
point
here.
So
one
is
I'm
going
to
go
a
touch
out
of
order
here
where
we're
going
to
go
with
the
allowing
the
non-conforming
lots
of
records
to
be
built
upon.
A
A
A
So
the
second
point
would
be
looking
at
the
setbacks,
so
they
are
asking
two
different
setbacks.
One
would
be
the
front
yard
setback
which
they
are
asking
for
a
front
yard
setback
of
10
feet,
whereas
the
current
criteria,
the
zoning,
the
requirement
is
a
20
feet,
set
back
they're
asking
for
10
feet.
So
that's
number
one
would
be.
Excuse
me
number,
two,
that
front
yard
setback
number
three
would
be
our
rear
yard
setback
which
again
the
criteria.
The
requirement
for
that
is
a
20
feet
and
they
are
asking
for
a
five
feet.
A
So
that
is
the
third
one
and
I
believe
we've
covered
all
of
that,
because
when
we're
tired
we're
talking
setback,
we
got
the
front.
We
got
the
rear
side
side,
the
sides
what
they
are
proposing
is
not
in
need
of
a
side
setback,
correct
either
side.
Okay,
so
these
do
not
necessarily
buy
our
board,
have
to
be
taken
as
a
holistic
package,
we
could
say
no
to
the
non-conforming,
yes
to
the
front,
no
to
the
back,
whatever
mix
that
may
be,
so
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
make
that.
B
A
That
is
the
other
point
where
you're
talking.
Thank
you,
mr
urbowsky,
about
the
review
standards.
So
we
have
review
standards
which
are
following
our
land
development
codes.
Are
I'm
losing
the
word
right
now
of
where
these
the.
A
A
Two
is.
The
lot
was
not
created
in
violation
of
a
previous
zoning
ordinance
and
three.
The
lot
was
not
combined
with
a
neighboring
lot
under
common
ownership
in
order
to
allow
the
existing
improvements
on
the
neighborhood
neighboring
developed
lots
to
meet
applicable
setbacks.
So
that's
the
criteria
that
we
are
looking
at
here
if
we
wanted
to
have
board
discussion
on
these
at
this
time,
all
right,
mr
boris,
mr
urbowski.
E
A
A
D
Maybe
for
some
clarification
for
these
criteria
for
a
non-conforming
lot,
the
first
one
is.
The
lot
consists
of
at
least
one
entire
lot
of
record
on
the
effective
date
of
this
code
and
I'll
read
staff's
findings
for
this
one
as
well.
The
subject
property
was
originally
plotted
in
1914
as
two
separate
lots
in
their
current
size
and
configurations
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
land
development
code.
So
any
land
development
code
in
the
city
didn't
exist
when
these
were
plotted.
D
D
A
So
in
layman's
terms,
if
we
were
to
vote
yes
in
the
affirmative
to
approve
these
being
non-conforming
lots
of
records,
we're
essentially
stating
that
we
are
approving
of
these
of
this
one
parcel
going
back
to
the
original
1914
plat
of
it
being
lot
9
and
10
to
be
built
on,
you
could
build
a
200
square
foot
place,
we're
not
talking
at
that
point
what
you're
probably
like,
no
there's,
probably
minimum
sizes
too
we're
not
talking
setbacks
at
that
point
or
anything
like
that,
it's
saying
you
can
build
period
following
other
criteria,
correct!
E
A
A
A
So
then,
the
other,
when
we're
talking
about
our
front
and
our
rear
yard
setbacks,
point
two
and
three:
we
have
the
following
five
review
standards
that
we
have
to
have
our
findings
of
facts
that
we've
talked
about.
One
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
generally,
which
do
not
apply
generally
to
property
located
in
the
same
zoning
district.
B
B
A
A
So
then,
you
have
that
literal
enforcement
of
the
requirements-
and
this
is
what
ms
keen
had
reviewed
to
where
reviewing
this-
does
this
prevent
them
reasonable
use
of
the
property
looking
at
the
front
yard
setback
request
versus
the
rear
yard
setback
request
and
then
conferring
any
special
privileges
again
very
similar
theme
as
to
what
ms
keane
had
reviewed,
what
the
front
yard
rear
setback
does
not
seem
to
have
been
matt
regard,
but
the
rear
is
another
story,
and
then
will
this
diminish
substantially
diminished
property
values
or
infringe
on
rights
of
others
is
on
the
other
ones.
A
So
again
the
staff
recommendation
on
this.
The
feedback
which
again
we
don't
always
have
to
necessarily
go
lockstep.
That's
why
the
board
exists
as
the
difference
between
front
and
rear
in
these
situations.
I.
A
And
that's
where,
in
studying
this
and
hearing
the
feedback,
I
think
it's
something
I've
certainly
noted
is
there
didn't
seem
to
be
any
question
or
concern
either
by
city
staff,
the
applicant
residents,
who
have
come
out
to
express
their
concerns
with
this
in
regards
to
the
rear
yard
setback?
A
That
seems
to
not
be
a
point
of
contention
that
in
having
the
the
variance
for
the
rear
yard
setback
being
smaller
than
what
is
required
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
point
of
issue.
In
my
opinion,
that's
where
I'm
asking
gentlemen
to
left
and
right
and
would
be
in
harmony
with
existing
structures
and.
A
A
A
big
ask:
it
is
a
really
big
ass
right
and
that's
where
that's
where
I,
the
other
concern
on
the
other
side
is
the
original
ask
was
ten
feet
versus
five.
A
So
it's
sounding
to
me,
mr
boris,
when
we're
discussing
the
approval
of
the
variant
of
the
required
request
for
making
them
a
non-conforming
lot
of
record
to
be
constructed.
Upon
does
not
seem
that
you
have
objection
to
that.
A
B
C
E
C
B
A
B
Okay,
I'm
going
to
say,
motion
to
approve
the
non-conforming
lot
of
record.
A
A
I
think
there
are
some
really
good
points
brought
up
about
the
driveway
situation,
we're
not
all
driving
those
tiny,
little
smart
cars
that
look
like
golf
carts
to
where
there
are.
I
agree:
some
serious
safety
and
parking
and
logistics
situations
that
certainly
impact
others
living
in
in
the
area
they're
on
that
street
and
driving
and
walking
and
riding
their
bikes
in
that
area.
A
So
understanding
and
again
criteria
before
us
has
nothing
to
do
with
garage,
whether
it's
front
load,
rear
load,
sharing
the
driveway,
none
of
those
things,
it's
purely
the
setback.
I
personally
am
not
comfortable
with
something
that
tight.
A
Second,
okay,
so
we
have
on
the
floor
motion
to
deny
the
front
yard
setback
and
we
have
a
roll
call.
Mr
bowsky.
B
A
A
Turner,
yes,
so
then
our
third
point
is
the
rear
setback
again
same
requirement
of
a
20
foot
and
the
ask
is
the
5
foot
and
we
actually
had
discussion
of
this
a
couple
minutes
ago.
B
E
A
Miss
turner,
yes,
so
I
do
appreciate
everyone
coming
out.
The
lots
can
be
built
upon,
at
least
in
making
them
non-conforming
lots
of
records,
whatever
those
setbacks
may
be.
This
is
one
of
those
situations
where
the
applicant
would
have
to
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
find
a
project
that
would
fit
working
with
city
staff,
I'm
so
glad
people
came
out
and
if
I
could
put
in
the
shameless
plug
for
look,
we
have
vacancies
on
our
board,
so
we
are
a
fun
group
serving
our
community.
B
A
A
Well,
we
did
I
I
well
we,
and
we
did
remind
that.
You
know
now
understanding
this
is
of
unusual
circumstance.
We
usually
have
two
other
board
members,
so
this
is
why
bottom
line
is
so
important,
so
we're
going
to
move
on
to
our
next
application,
which
is
number
22-73.
This
is
a
variance
to
reduce
the
required
rear
yard.
Setback
for
the
purpose
of
constructing
a
screened
in
porch
location
is
1615
stonehaven
way.
If
we
could,
please
have
ms
keem
give
us
the
staff
report.
Please,
yes,.
D
D
The
applicants
are
here
today
requesting
variance
approval
to
allow
for
a
reduced
rear
yard
setback
in
order
to
construct
a
screen
in
porch
with
a
hard
roof
over
an
existing
concrete
patio.
They
are
proposing
a
13
foot,
rear
yard
setback,
whereas
they
would
be
required
typically,
a
20
foot,
rear
yard
setback
in
the
r-70
district.
D
This
is
a
survey
of
the
property.
The
existing
concrete
patio
is
the
shaded
in
blue
here
that
patio
currently
is
only
13
feet
away
from
the
rear
property
line
again
they're
requesting
a
variance
approval
to
allow
them
to
be
13
feet
for
screening
that
area
in
with
a
hard
roof,
as
opposed
to
the
required
20
feet.
D
D
D
If
the
hard
roof
was
removed
from
the
proposed
screen
and
porch,
it
could
be
treated
similarly
to
a
pool
screen
enclosure
and
would
be
permitted
without
variance
approval.
The
applicant
has
indicated
that
having
some
shaded
space
in
their
backyard
is
pretty
critical,
so
the
hard
roof
is
why
they're
here
today,
the
second
consideration
is
section
36.01,
a
for
accessory
structure,
setbacks,
structures
that
are
less
than
200
square
feet
in
area
are
permitted
to
have
a
reduced
rear
yard
setback
of
five
feet
or
outside
any
easement.
D
D
D
I
also
did
very
approximate
measurements
over
the
aerial
photograph
and
those
are
the
numbers
you
see
here
of
what
those
setbacks
are.
As
you
can
see
from
this
screen,
I
believe
there's
only
one,
that's
in
conformance
with
the
current
code
likely.
These
were
probably
constructed
pre-dating,
but
right
now,
there's
only
one.
A
Well,
thank
you.
You
actually
answered
some
of
my
questions
there,
mr
boris,
mr
urbowsky.
A
A
They
had
a
big
uncovered
gap
of
two
feet.
Then
we
they
wouldn't
even
be
sitting
here,
but
that
would
be
a
little
silly.
Wouldn't
it
theoretically,
okay!
So
thank
you
very
much.
If
the
applicant
is
here
and
would
like
to
present
or
ask
any
questions
actually
miss,
we
did
have
a
question
for
mr
ibowski.
C
Please
raise
your
right
hand.
Do
you
saw
me
swear
from
the
testimony
you're
about
to
give
will
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing,
but
the
truth.
I
do
thank
you.
Please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
My
name
is
christine
gasco
and
I'm
one
of
the
applicants
at
1615
stonehaven
way.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
C
B
A
A
So
if
we
do,
if
there's
anyone
here
that
wanted
to
have
any
public
comment
regarding
this
application,
none,
okay!
So
we'll
close
our
public
comment,
any
other
questions
for
staff.
Before
we
move
on.
No
do
we
have
a
motion
motion.
A
All
right
motion
in
a
second
to
approve,
I
mean
we
have
a
roll
call.
Mr
bowsky.
Yes,
mr
burris,
yes,
miss
turner,
yes
enjoy
your
porch
all
right.
So
last
but
not
least,
we
have
application
22-78,
which
is
a
variance
to
allow
a
fence
to
exceed
the
maximum
allowable
height
at
1611.
Coppertree
drive,
ms
keene.
D
D
D
D
The
main
reason
for
the
request
is:
there
is
an
approximate
one
and
a
half
to
two
and
a
half
foot
elevation
change
between
the
subject:
property
and
the
adjacent
property
to
the
north.
These
images
are
showing
some
of
the
existing
fencing
along
the
property
line,
and
you
can
also
see
how
the
adjacent
home
in
this
second
picture
sits
relatively
higher
than
the
subject
property
effectively.
Approval
of
an
eight-foot
variance
would
be
approximately
a
six-foot
fence
height
from
the
neighboring
property.
A
Any
question
I
believe
we
have
you
know
mr
robowski
I
mentioned:
we've
had
a
very
similar
application
before
where
there
was
a
almost
like
a
gully
in
someone's
rear
yard,
and
if
they
had
these
standard
six
foot
fence,
it
was
really
I
mean
that
was
a
pretty
deep
one.
It
was
going
to
be
like
a
four
foot
fence.
It
would
have
just
been
this
silly
little.
Nothing
so
given
not
everything
in
florida
is
flat.
A
A
Is
there
any
information
that
ms
keane
has
that
that
has
not
been
shared
by
miss
kane
or
in
your
your
packet
that
you'd
like
to
share
with
us?
I.
G
Don't
think
so,
I
think
she
covered
everything.
Excuse
me
the
pictures
kind
of
explain
a
little
bit
of
it.
Of
course,
it
is
a
fact
that,
with
the
height
difference,
if
you're
on
their
property
looking
into
mine,
their
fence
is
right.
Here
I
have
a
big
pool.
This
is
for
their
benefit
and
my
benefit
right,
because
you
know
I
have
a
large
family,
five
grandchildren
they're,
always
over
okay.
A
Well,
thank
you
very
much
any
questions.
No
thank.
A
Okay,
so
in
closing
public
comment,
no
other
further
questions.
If
we
can
have
a
motion
motion.
E
A
Okay.
So
if
we
have
our
june
29th
minutes
which
have
been
presented,
do
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
I'll.
A
D
D
Just
bring
it
in
anytime
you're
here,
but
so
we
just
thank
you
guys
for
your
continued
input
on
that
process,
and
then
you
already
gave
a
nice
plug
about
open
positions
on
the
board.
So
if
you
guys
know
anyone
who
is
interested,
we
still
are
looking
for
applicants.
We
have
not
received
any
at
this
point.
B
D
Think,
finally,
getting
my
so
my
my
recommendation
is
reach
out
to
the
city
clerk
just
for
verification
of
how
that
process,
yeah.
D
I'm
gonna,
have
you
talk
to
the
city
clerk.
E
D
Mean
well
so
we
I
did
ask
the
city
clerk.
If
anyone
had
that
as
the
board
of
adjustment
as
another
board
they're
interested,
maybe
it
wasn't
their
first
choice
and
at
this
time
no
we
did
say
if
anyone
that
wasn't
chosen
for
a
board,
if
maybe
they're
interested
in
this
board-
and
we
just
haven't
gotten
anything
yet
we
did
send
out
a
blast
on
connect.
Tarpon
springs
very.
B
D
D
Too
right
now
that
we
do
have
a
new
group
in
the
citizens
academy,
so
I'm
I'm
nervous.
B
A
A
All
right:
well,
let's
go
ahead
and
call
for
a
german
at
set
adjournment
at
7
49pm.
I
guess
I
do
my
role.