![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UxW4PmnMdpw/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments May 24. 2023
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
C
The
matters
before
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
Board
of
adjustment
are
quasi-judicial
in
nature
and
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding.
The
board's
function
is
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
city
of
Tarpon
Springs
code
of
ordinances.
This
is
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
before
the
board.
C
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
that
the
law
considers
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
to
the
issues
arising
from
the
application
and
the
applicable
code
sections
any
and
all
persons
providing
providing
testimony
at
this
hearing
are
required
to
do
so
under
oath.
All
persons
testifying
at
this
hearing
must
give
their
name
address
and
must
indicate
whether
or
not
they
have
been
sworn
for
the
record
prior
to
proceeding
with
their
testimony.
C
All
testimony
and
questioning
at
this
hearing
must
address
matters
that
are
relevant
and
material
to
the
issues
under
consideration,
based
on
the
criteria
established
in
the
city
of
Tarpon
Springs
code
of
ordinances.
If
any
board
member
has
any
disclosures
regarding
an
application,
please
make
disclosures
on
the
record
at
the
beginning
of
the
hearing.
This
would
include
any
ex
parte
and
any
voting
conflicts
of
interest
that
have
not
yet
been
declared.
C
C
The
applicant
will
then
have
the
opportunity
to
present
Witnesses
and
evidence,
and
the
city
will
have
the
opportunity
to
cross-examine
the
applicant
and
any
of
the
applicants.
Witnesses
members
of
the
public
opposing
the
application
will
be
given
the
opportunity
to
present,
as
well
as
members
of
the
public
and
support
of
the
application.
C
Then
the
applicant
and
the
city
may
present
any
rebuttal
testimony
and
evidence
at
a
closing
statement
for
summary
and
the
board
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
discussion
and
consideration
of
the
application
at
this
time
for
anyone
Desiring
to
seek
to
speak
at
tonight's
hearing.
Please
stand
to
receive
the
oath.
C
Raise
your
right
hand,
do
you
swear
to
tell
yes
thank
you?
Do
you
swear
to
tell
the
truth
on
the
matters
before
the
city
of
Tarpon
Springs
Board
of
adjustment
here
this
evening?
Thank
you.
Please
make
sure
you
state
your
name
address
and
that
you've
been
sworn
when
you
come
up
to
the
podium
to
speak.
A
Thank
you.
So
our
first
application
for
the
evening
is
application
number
23-30,
which
is
a
variance
to
allow
a
rear
deck
to
encroach
further
than
permitted
into
the
rear
yard
of
an
existing
single-family
home.
The
property
is
located
at
1614
series,
Sea
Breeze
Drive.
If
we
could,
please
have
staff
presentation
on
this
application,
yeah
1641
apologies.
Thank
you.
D
D
The
applicant
is
here
today
requesting
variance
approval
to
rebuild
a
rear
deck
that
encroaches
further
into
the
required
rear
yard
than
that
is
allowed.
The
original
deck,
which
is
the
footprint
outlined
in
red
here,
had
to
be
removed
due
to
some
damage
and
it
caused
some
unsafe
conditions.
They
are
proposing
the
new
rear
deck
to
follow
the
same
footprint
and
encroach
13.2
feet
into
the
rear
yard,
whereas
10
feet
is
allowed.
D
D
The
code
also
allows
for
an
above
grade,
rear
deck,
to
encroach
10
feet
into
a
required
rear
yard,
but
no
closer
than
15
feet
and
again,
in
this
case,
to
follow
the
original
footprint
which
they
have
removed,
the
staircase
to
bring
it
closer
to
compliance,
but
to
follow
the
original
10-foot
footprint
of
the
deck.
It
encroaches
at
this
corner
approximately
13.2
feet
and
just
under
10
feet
here,
so
it's
compliant
on
this
side,
but
not
this
corner.
D
One
thing
to
consider
about
this
property
is
a
portion
of
the
lot
does
go
into
the
water,
but
any
submerged
land
does
not
count
for
setbacks,
so
the
setback
is
measured
from
the
center
of
the
sea
wall,
so
in
this
case,
from
the
center
of
the
sea
wall.
Although
it's
encroaching
further
than
allowed,
it
still
does
meet
that
minimum
15
feet.
It's
16.8
feet
from
this
corner
and
just
over
20
feet
from
this
corner
to
the
center
of
the
sea
wall.
D
These
are
some
photos
that
were
provided
by
the
applicant.
The
top
photo
is
looking
at
the
original
deck
before
it
was
removed.
The
bottom
photo
is
showing
some
of
the
damage
that
necessitated
the
removal
of
that
deck.
One
consideration
with
this
property
is
the
house
is
elevated,
so
parking
is
below
in
the
primary
Living.
Spaces
are
in
the
second
and
third
Story.
The
original
design
of
the
house
had
a
rear
door
accessing
the
deck.
A
A
City
staff
at
this
point,
so
just
for
clarification,
we
are
looking
again
at
one
of
those
situations
where,
because
of
the
angle
of
the
lot
and
the
angle
of
the
structure,
it's
almost
like
a
that
sliver
pie
shaped
where
you
get
that
one
corner
that
at
the
maximum
point,
is
of
three
feet
and
change,
and
then
it
goes
down
from
there.
Okay,
correct,
okay,
I
appreciate
that
if
the
applicant
is
present,
if
they
would
like
to
step
forward
and
present
any
information
and
answer
any
questions.
A
So
any
information
that
you
would
like
to
share
in
addition
to
what
you
presented
in
your
application
packet.
F
Nothing's,
nothing
specific
other
than
where
you're
just
trying
to
build
the
deck,
the
parameters
that
so
it's
not
at
a
diagonal
shape
beyond
that
we're
looking
at
you
know,
potential
staircase
spiral
staircase
off
to
the
right
of
it,
but
we
did
want
to
be
observant
to
the
updated
code.
So
removing
those
stairs
wasn't
too
much
of
an
issue
but
we'll
okay.
A
And
I
don't
believe
there
were
stairs
that.
A
D
There
are
different
allowances
for
staircases
to
encroach,
and
if,
in
this
case,
the
deck
is
allowed
to
encroach
at
this
location,
the
board
approves
it.
We
would
look
at
those
requirements
for
the
staircase,
but
I
do
believe
we
looked
at
it
originally
and
it
could
potentially
get
one
on
the
side.
H
Yeah
I
have
a
question
the
when,
when
you
submitted
it,
you
submitted
it
without
the
stairs
I.
Yes,
sir,
did
you
did
you
really
want
the
stairs
in
or.
F
So
we're
still
trying
to
evaluate
what
we're
going
to
do
with
that,
so
I
didn't
include
it.
I
didn't
want
to
complicate
the
situation
or
the
proposal,
but
at
this
point
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
had
the
the
deck
squared
away
and
kind
of
figure.
H
So
the
I
would
I
probably
recommend,
maybe
reconsidering
the
stairs.
Yes,.
F
Sir,
so
with
the
as
I've
contacted,
various
firms
that
specialize
in
spiral,
staircases
and
I
know
that
we
have
options
in
terms
of
how
we
want
it
structured
how
we
want
to
build
so
I
think
our
pursuit
of
that
was
going
to
be
dictated
kind
of
what
happened
at
the
meeting
here
and
and
go
from
there.
But
I
think
it'll
be
a
critical
part
of
the
deck.
So
it's
nothing
that
we
would
I
guess
shy
away
from
or
not
want
to
get
constructed
at
something.
A
And
so
yeah,
as
you
noted,
it's
not
in
the
purview
of
the
approval
or
denial
of
this
specific
variance
request
as
we're
looking
at
the
setback,
but
the
stairs
I'm
assuming
Miss
Keane.
That
is
something
that
is
a
code
and
a
requirement
issue
that,
as
the
applicant
moves
forward,
would
be
addressed
with
your
office
right.
D
So
if
they
submit
their
building
permit,
that
shows
a
staircase.
If
it
didn't
for
any
reason,
meet
the
required
code
allowance,
then
their
options
are
to
make
it
to
meet
the
code
allowance
or
come
back
before
the
board
and
ask
for
a
variance
because
it's
a
dimensional
requirement.
So,
yes,
they
would
address
it
at
the
building
permits.
A
F
A
Right,
okay
or
it
may
not
like
you,
said
those
spiral
ones
pretty.
You
know
compact
footprint
and
you
have
options,
as
you
said,
are
there
any
other
questions
from
the
board?
Okay,.
A
G
E
E
C
A
There
anyone
present
that
would
like
to
speak
in
regards
to
this
application.
A
H
A
D
All
right
again,
these
properties
are
located
on
the
south
side
of
Division
Street
outlined
in
yellow
here
in
the
screen.
Lot.
9
is
the
Western
lot
and
lot
10
is
the
Eastern
lot
just
for
clarification.
These
are
two
separate
applications,
because
there
are
two
separate
properties,
but
we
have
combined
them
because
they're
common
applicant
common
ownership
and
the
same
request
so,
but
there
are
two
separate
applications:
you'll
need
two
motions
for
Action:
the
surrounding
area
is
primarily
in
the
r60
one
and
two
family
zoning
district.
D
The
applicants
are
here
today
requesting
variance
approval
to
reduce
the
required
front
and
rear
yard
setbacks
in
order
to
construct
a
new
single-family
home
on
each
lot.
They
are
proposing
to
have
a
front
yard
setback
of
15
feet
and
a
rear
yard
setback
of
five
feet,
and
in
this
case
the
r60
Zone
requires
a
minimum
20-foot
setback.
D
As
some
of
you
may
recall,
the
applicant
came
before
the
board
in
August
of
last
year.
At
that
time,
the
board
did
vote
to
recognize
Lots,
9
and
10
as
legal
non-conforming
lots
of
record.
This
resulted
in
each
of
these
Lots
being
buildable
at
the
time.
The
applicants
also
requested
a
variance
approval
for
reduced
front
yard
of
10
feet
in
a
reduced
rear
yard
of
5
feet,
and
the
board
did
deny
those
requests.
D
At
the
time
of
the
original
review,
staff
did
support
the
five
foot
rear
setback
request.
However,
we
are
not
in
support
of
the
front
yard
setback.
It
was
our
opinion
that
a
larger
setback
that
was
more
consistent
with
the
average
setback
of
that
street
I
would
be
more
consistent
with
the
neighborhood
and
we
also
had
a
preference
for
the
front
loading
garages
to
meet
the
minimum.
25
foot
setback
requirement.
D
Since
that
time,
the
applicant
has
gone
back
and
revised
their
layout
and
is
before
you
today,
with
a
new
variance
request,
they're
again
requesting
to
reduce
the
front
yard
to
15
feet
in
this
case,
but
they
have
revised
the
layout
to
push
the
garages
back
to
meet
the
minimum.
25
foot
setback
they're,
proposing
the
five
foot
rear
setback
here
and
again.
In
both
these
cases,
a
minimum
of
20
feet
is
required
for
the
house.
D
And
then,
when
zooming
out
and
looking
at
this
segment
of
Division
Street,
most
of
these
homes
were
constructed
in
the
1910s
1920s.
This
far
predates
the
first
zoning
ordinance
going
to
affect
in
the
city,
and
so
we
took
the
aerial
photography
and
did
some
measurements
to
provide
you
some
context
of
how
those
homes
were
built
on
the
street.
In
this
case,
looking
at
the
front
yard
the
homes-
and
this
is
between
Athens
and
oh
gosh,
Roosevelt.
D
And
the
front
yard
ranges
between
12
feet
to
53
feet
with
an
average
of
16
feet
along
that
segment.
The
rear
yards
when
looking
is
primarily
along
the
south
side
of
the
street
are
typically
very
minimal
for
this
area.
We
also
took
a
look
at
some
of
the
existing
home
depths.
If
the
minimum
r60
setbacks
were
applied
to
this
property,
it
would
allow
for
a
home.
D
A
couple
considerations
we
already
touched
on
the
garage
setback
and
I
have
noted
that
the
applicants
are
proposing
to
comply
with
that
standard
of
the
code.
Really.
The
primary
reason
for
that
is
to
prevent
any
vehicle,
that's
parked
in
a
driveway
from
overhanging
into
the
street
or
blocking
a
sidewalk.
So
if
the
variance
is
approved,
staff
still
would
recommend
that
a
front
loaded
Garage
still
be
required
to
be
a
setback
of
minimum
25
feet
through
a
condition
just
to
reinforce
this
requirement.
D
Another
consideration
is
again
the
yard
encroachment
section
of
the
code.
This
section
provides
for
various
yard
encroachments
that
allow
certain
structures
to
encroach
into
a
required
setback.
In
this
case,
an
unenclosed
front,
porch
is
permitted
to
be
encroached
up
to
10
feet
into
a
required
front
yard.
So
if
a
house
was
built
at
the
minimum
20-foot
setback,
they
would
be
allowed
to
have
a
porch
that
could
go
as
close
as
10
feet
to
the
front
property
line
and
again
here
are
your
decision
criteria
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions.
A
So
a
few
questions
here,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
research
that
you
have
done
on
on
this
information.
Can
you
please
and
I,
realize
we're
not
looking
at
the
side
set
box,
but
just
to
put
the
whole
parcel
into
perspective
here?
What
are
the
side,
setbacks
required
and
I
believed
a
lot.
Widths
are
50
if
I'm
looking
at
this
correctly.
D
The
I
have
to
look
at
the
survey
to
get
the
actual
lot
widths.
The
minimum
width
in
that
district
is
40
feet.
These
were
compliant
in
the
minimum
widths.
It
was
the
lot
area
that
made
these
Lots
non-conforming
they're
smaller,
but
the
required
side
setback
is
five
feet
and
they
are
proposing
to
meet
that.
Okay.
A
A
And
point
of
clarification
here
when
I'm
looking
at
yes,
that
this
one
right
here
so
the
front
yard,
where
you
have
the
hatch
marked
there
showing
the
front
I'm
assuming
that's
you
know
denoting
that
would
be
that
open
front.
Porch.
D
So,
in
this
case,
I
just
provided
that
for
context
to
let
you
know
that
if
they
built
something
compliant
with
a
20-foot
setback,
the
code
would
allow
an
open,
unenclosed
porch
to
be
closer
to
the
property
line.
In
this
case
they
had
the
entire
structure
at
the
15-foot
setback
mark
that
they're,
proposing
with
the
garage
pushed
back
to
25
feet
so
either
this
may.
This
may
be
a
porch
area.
It
may
be
open
or
whatnot,
but
it's
at
the
15
foot
mark.
C
D
Didn't
yeah?
Okay,
but
yes,
it
is.
It
is
a
requirement
of
the
the
code,
but
we
didn't
want
to
have
any
misunderstanding
at
the
permanent
stage
that
if
someone
comes
in
and
they
have
the
they
came
in
with
the
garage
closer
that
they
got
a
variance
for
15
foot,
we
wanted
to
make
sure
it
was
clear
that
didn't
apply
to
a
garage.
A
And
just
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
all
are
aware
is
what's
presented,
so
these
Lots
were
originally
planted
in
1914.
So
we're
looking
at
what
someone
platted
99
years
ago
with
different
living
times
of
ways
that
we're
doing
things
and
once
we
got
our
first
Land
Development
code
in
1944,
that
is
when
they
became
non-conforming.
A
Lots
of
record
am
I
correct
in
assuming
that,
at
that
time,
probably,
and
looking
at
I,
don't
have
the
number
of
the
slide,
but
the
one
where
you're
showing
the
overhead
of
numbering
all
of
the
the
Lots,
because
we're
looking
at
nine
and
ten,
so
five,
six,
seven
eight
eleven
twelve
Etc
would
those
also
be
non-conforming.
It
looks
like
they're
all
in
a
very
similar
situation.
D
So
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
at
the
top
of
my
head.
I
believe.
Yes,
some
of
them
are
non-conforming.
Yes,
but
I
can't
confirm
that
all
of
them
are
non-conforming.
A
Without
looking
at
them
and
understand,
so
it's
not
an
uncommon,
correct
occurrence
there,
okay
and
I
think
the
other
questions
I
had
would
probably
be
best
addressed
by
the
applicant.
I
A
I
I
D
That
correct
so,
yes,
criteria,
one
does
talk
about
some
sort
of
physical
limitation
on
the
property.
What
I
can
say
is
From
staff's
perspective
in
this
review.
We
felt
that
for
quite
that's
criteria,
number
one
that
the
non-conforming
law
and
the
area
of
the
law
was
one
of
the
Necessities
for
a
reduced
setback,
because
you
know
the
code
basically
envisions.
This
is
a
minimum
lot
size.
These
are
the
setbacks
that
should
work
for
that
lot
size.
But
in
this
case
this
property
is
much
smaller
than
what
would
be
typically
required
if
it
was
plotted
today.
D
D
It's
it's
not
labeled
on
the
site
plan
that
was
provided,
but
I
can
look
at
that
when
you
ask
when
they
ask
questions
of
the
applicant
and
I
can
get
that
information
for
you,
I.
C
Think
it
might
be
85.
I'm,
looking
at
this
slide
here
with
the
overhead
and
on
the
right
side
of
Lot
10
right.
D
J
Frontage
so
they're
50,
each
I
got
you.
Okay,
only
Division
Street
r60
zoning
diagram
that
they
have
it
says
not
to
scale,
which
means
if
this
is
not
to
scale.
This
is
not
scale,
and
this
one
is
not
skill
correct.
J
Why?
Why
don't
we
have
an
architectural
joint
on
this.
D
So
for
for
variance,
they're
allowed
to
provide
conceptual
site
plans,
but
in
this
case
you
know,
they're
stating
that
they
can
fit
the
footprint
and
this
in
this
conceptual
layout,
with
those
setbacks
that
are
proposed.
If
they
go
through
the
process
of
doing
once,
they
get
to
the
full
planning
stage
and
site
planning
stage
of
it
and
they
do
not
meet
those
and
they'd
have
to
come
back.
But
the
code
does
not
require
a
full
architectural
civil
site
plan
to
be
provided.
A
A
Pardon
me,
sir,
so
in
looking
at
this,
sir,
which
I
I
do
understand,
you
know
we're
we're
here
to
make
the
determination
on
you
know
the
front
and
the
rear
setback
of
concern.
Of
course,
is
the
front
yard
setback
and
staying.
You
know
within
the
parameters
of
the
rules
that
we
have
and
the
character
of
the
of
the
area.
A
The
conceptual
renderings
that
you've
given
us.
It
does
appear
that
there
is
that
open,
porch
and
then
the
garage
with
the
setback,
correct.
K
A
So
is
that
the
intention
for
this
I.
K
A
A
I
understand
and
regarding
the
garage
because
I
know
the
last
time
that
we
met
the
you
know,
one
of
the
main
points
and
concerns
of
ours
which
resulted
in
the
denial
was
the
setback
regarding
the
garage,
the
front-facing
garage,
knowing
that
there
would
need
to
be
ample
parking
on
the
property.
So
that
way,
cars
are
not
parking
on
the
already
overcrowded,
Street
or
hanging
over
onto
things.
So,
as
Miss
Keane
said,
the
front
load
garage
requiring
a
25-foot
setback,
front
yard
setback
is
that.
K
It
does
as
far
as
that
question
is
as
long
as
we're
within
the
setbacks,
I
mean
someone
could
probably
calculate
it
up.
I
mean
I,
don't
know
what
it
might
be,
but
I
I
don't
really
know
exactly
what
the
square
footage
is,
because
we
don't
have
a
final
conception,
because
it
depends
a
lot
on
what
you
folks
approve
or
to
disapprove
before
we
go
out
and
actually
do
the
actual
design.
A
K
G
Something
yes.
G
K
K
My
brother
brother
was
supposed
to
be
here,
but
he
is,
he
is
not
in
the
country,
I.
K
Yeah
I
mean
we're
not
really
I
mean,
with
the
young
lady
said,
regarding
the
average
setback
of
the
homes
in
there,
where
it's
not
like
we're
asking
for
anything
unusual
or
outrageous
or
I
mean
we're
staying
within
those
parameters.
A
And
and
looking
at
you
know,
Mr
herbowski,
the
point
that
he's
bringing
and
you
know
and
quoting
what
is
presented
here
directly
from
the
applicant
and
if
my
math
is
correct
here,
if
there's
no
variance
which
the
city
staff
provided
that,
if
no
variants
front
or
back
that
house
depth
a
proper,
a
home
depth
would
be
45
feet
deep.
That
was
I
believe
what
was
presented.
Yeah
approximately
approximately
45
feet,
deep.
A
A
And
then,
looking
at
the
your
sides,
if
we
have
a
without
having
the
exact
number
again
we're
going
off
of
you
know
very
educated
guesses
here.
If
that
property
width
is
50
feet
and
looking
at
the
others.
Looking
at
this
is
a
hundred
we've
divided
it
in
two
you're,
roughly
about
a
50
foot,
wide
property
width,
correct,
yes,
they're
50
feet
wide.
It
is
a
50
foot
wide
and
the
setback
on
that's
five
feet,
so
that
would
mean
the
max
you
could
go
for
that
would
be
a
40
foot
wide
home.
A
G
J
Yes,
on
the
Board
of
adjustment
review
standards,
number
three:
the
approval
of
the
variants
will
allow
for
the
construction
of
a
single
family
home
similar
to
those
in
the
surrounding
neighborhood
variance
is
denied.
The
property
will
still
have
reasonable
use.
H
J
K
A
L
My
name
is
Dimitri
mostopoulos
and
I
own
the
vacant
lot
across
the
street
from
the
properties
in
question.
My
address
is
216
High
Street
in
Tarpon
Springs,
just
quickly
getting
back
to
your
calculation
of
the
1800
square
feet.
That
would
be
a
footprint
of
1800
square
feet.
If
you
wanted
to
take
away
the
garage
and
the
driveway
because
of
the
25,
you
are
going
to
reduce
that
1800
down,
possibly
to
14
to
1500.
L
D
Sure
so
I
we
put
that
in
there
for
context.
Just
so,
you
were
aware
that
say
some
he
was
coming
in
to
develop
the
property
compliant
with
all
code
requirements.
They
could
build
the
front
wall
of
the
house
to
the
20-foot
setback,
that's
required,
but
the
code
does
allow
for
a
porch
to
be
at
10
feet
and
that's
Code
Compliance.
So
we
were
just
trying
to
provide
some
context
that
potentially
a
compliance
structure
could
be
the
porch
could
make
it
close
to
the
property
line.
D
D
The
staff
report
states
that
LDC,
which
is
Land
Development
code,
section
38,
provides
for
various
yard
encroachments,
which
allows
certain
structures
to
encroach
into
a
required
setback.
Specifically
unenclosed
front
porches
are
permitted
to
incred,
encroach
up
to
10
feet
into
a
required
front
yard.
So
the
required
front
yard
is
20
feet
for
the
house.
So
if
you
can
coach
10
feet,
it
would
allow
for
a
10
foot
setback.
L
D
Yes,
okay,
so
yes,
there
are
so
the
the
yard.
Encroachment
section
is
what
I
read
here,
but
there
are
various
setbacks
for
the
front
depending
on
the
zoning
District,
so
a
property
in
the
r100
zoning
district
has
a
minimum
front
setback
of
25
feet
so
that
would
allow
the
Porsche
to
go
only.
You
know
10
feet
into
that,
so
15
foot
setback.
So
yes,
various
zoning
districts
have
different
requirements,
but
the
allowance
is
10
feet
into
a
required
front
yard.
So.
C
L
C
G
D
So
so
what
I
can
so?
Yes,
I
see
what
you're,
seeing
in
this
code
it
has
or
in
this
table
is.
D
Table
was
also
prepared
back
in
2011,
which
I
admit,
is
a
very
outdated
table,
that
we
don't
reference
in
our
office
and
should
be
updated,
not
to
say
that
the
I
don't
know
why
it
has
15
feet
to
an
unenclosed
porch,
because
I
did
refer
back
to
the
r60
zoning
District
in
the
Land
Development
code
itself
and
there's
not
any
specific
mention
to
an
enclosed
porch.
It
just
has
front
to
garage
and
front
to
living
area.
I
can't
say
that
maybe
back
then
there
maybe
was
another
requirement
that
had
a
porch
reference
to
it.
D
L
Right
so,
based
on
that
information,
the
concern
is
like
you
guys
had
expressed
as
having
these
houses
too
close
to
the
street,
which
is
a
narrow
Street
to
begin
with,
but
without
bringing
it
up
to
the
15
feet,
you
are
limiting
to
the
size
of
the
house
that
could
be
built
without
extending
to
the
back.
It
is
significantly
limited,
I
am
and
I
don't
know.
Maybe
it's
a
separate.
Is
it
a
separate
thing
for
the
open
porch
or
is
that
part
of
the
front
setback.
D
I
think
variance
requests
because
they're
not
proposing
to
have
an
open,
unenclosed
porch
on
it.
I
think
15
feet
is
the
setback.
What
I
will
say
if
they
wanted
to
add
an
open
and
unenclosed
porch
in
the
future?
They
could
only
go
I
mean
they
can't
get
any
closer
than
10
feet
to
the
property
line.
So
I
believe
they
could
probably
do
a
five
foot
porch
but
I'll
defer
to
the
to
council
more.
M
L
Okay
with
the
variance
going
to
15
feet,
but
that
also
to
include
any
open
porch.
You
know,
because
once
you
get
to
5
or
10
feet
from
the
sidewalk
it
it
might
be
crowding
up.
But
if
he
wants
to
build
his
structure
starting
at
15
feet
instead
of
20
feet
to
get
an
extra
5
by
40
in
the
front
there,
and
also
with
the
back
I,
don't
have
any
objection
on
the
back
either.
But
that's
I
just
was
more
concerned
with
that
open
porch
spilling
out
feeling.
L
C
Apologize
we'll
get
that
corrected
on
our
website.
Just
briefly
on
that,
based
on
the
way
that
the
code
reads,
it
says
into
the
required
yard
setback
the
required
yard
setback
is
actually
20..
So
if
you're
giving
them
a
variance
to
have
it
set
back
the
15
feet,
then
you
can
do
just
the
five
additional
feet
would
be
what
would
be
allowed
for
the
porch.
C
C
That's
a
little
different
because
that's
something
that
they're
entitled
to
by
right.
N
O
O
One
of
the
considerations
I
never
hear
brought
up
and
been
coming
to
the
board
of
adjustment
meetings.
Now
for
a
couple
months
is
the
impact
to
the
community.
On
the
flip
side,
we
talk
about
the
impact
of
what
it
does
to
hurt
the
community,
but
we
don't.
O
Nobody
ever
seems
to
talk
about
what
good
could
come
from
this
now
he's
across
the
street
from
me,
he's
going
to
be
starting
new
construction,
I'm
rebuilding
an
existing
house.
So
for
me,
I,
don't
really
have
an
opinion,
whether
I
support
it
or
or
before
or
against
it,
but
I'm
a
realtor
and
one
thing
I
see
happening
in
Tarpon.
Springs
is
property.
Values
are
going
to
start
to
shift
as
markets
shifts,
we're
going
to
have
there's
a
lot
of
talk
about
it.
O
That
concerns
me
as
a
homeowner,
so
I
guess,
if
I
think
about
it,
am
I
for
it.
I'd
say
yeah,
because
if
we
cut
back
his
square
footage,
we
take
money
out
of
Tyler's
pocket
across
the
street.
We
take
Dimitris
money
out
of
Dimitri's
pocket
because
he's
going
to
build
a
house
next
door
to
mine
someday
and
it
starts
to
really
have
a
big
impact
on
the
neighbors.
We
want
to
keep
the
historical
value.
O
That's
why
we're
going
to
renovate
our
house
and
keep
it
historically
pure,
because
we
want
to
add
and
benefit
Turban
Springs.
My
wife
grew
up
here.
She
graduated
from
Tarpon
High
I've,
been
here
since
2008.
and
I.
We
want
to
do
what
we
can
to
help
the
city
and
I
respect
and
appreciate
everything
you
guys
do
the
volunteer,
someone,
that's
awesome.
Ally
we've
worked
with
you
with
driveways
and
stuff.
You've
been
awesome,
so
thank
you,
but
I
just
want
the
board
to
consider
the
other
side
of
the
story
that
loss
of
square
footage.
O
C
So
I
want
to
clarify
that
this
board
is
not
restricting
his
square
footage.
What
he's
requesting
is
additional
square
footage
more
than
what
he
would
be
allowed
under
the
code,
so
that
is
a
huge
difference.
He
already
has
there's
an
established
code
that
has
a
certain
right
that
he
could
Avail
himself
of
to
build
something.
That's
there.
Essentially,
what
you're
doing
is
granting
that
additional
right,
but.
C
O
A
Thank
you
very
much,
sir,
and
that
is
a
good
point
because,
particularly
when
we're
looking
at
you
know
a
historically
significant
area
such
as
Greek
Town,
it
does
bring
up
points
of
concern.
We
don't
have
them
present,
but
we
do
have
some
letters
that
have
been
submitted
as
part
of
the
application
that
do
bring
up
the
the
point
that
this
is
in
the
Greektown
historic
district
that
is
currently
in
process
of
being
recognized
as
such,
with
having
some
special
criteria.
A
So,
even
if
we
were
to
approve
or
deny
whatever
would
happen
today,
if
the
criteria
changes
for
other
building
requirements
in
the
very
near
future,
with
the
location
of
this
property
being
in
in
this
potentially
new
historic
district,
that
would
have
to
be
met.
Regardless
of
what
we
decide
today
and
with
that
was
brought
up
that
in
this
area,
there's
there's
the
concern
of
something
being
out
of
scope
for,
in
particular,
the
the
size
of
of
the
home
in
comparison
to
the
others
in
in
the
area.
E
H
We
said
that
there
are
other
properties
on
the
street
that
go
back
to
the
five
feet
or
I
think
we
said
minimal,
I'm,
not
sure
we
said
five
feet,
but
if
we
could
go
yeah,
are
there
other
properties
in
the
in
the
immediate
vicinity
that
that
are
that
have
building
structures,
five
feet
from
the
back,
so.
D
So
when
I
was
doing
the
measurements
here,
as
you
can
see,
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
trees
and
vegetation,
so
it's
harder
to
get
as
close
to
Accurate
measurement
as
I
was
for
the
front.
It
was
a
little
easier
in
that
case,
but
this
the
property
at
Jason
next
door,
has
very
minimum.
D
That's
what
we
said:
they're
minimal
setbacks
based
off
of
the
property
line
is
approximately
here,
and
the
edge
of
the
structure
is
just
a
few
feet
from
the
property
line,
and
we
saw
that
that
Trend
was
mostly
on
the
south
side
of
division.
D
That's
probably
because
the
angle
of
the
street,
those
properties
all
start
to
narrow,
as
you
go
closer
to
Athens,
the
setbacks
on
this
side
of
the
street
are
a
little
greater
on
the
North
side,
much
more
than
probably
the
20
feet.
But
then
this
structure
here
is
set
back
very
far
from
the
street
in
almost
probably,
if
not
on
the
property
line,
just
a
foot
or
two
off
of
the
property
line.
So
it
really
does
vary,
but
we
saw
that
there
were
several
structures
on
this
segment
of
the
street.
D
A
And
it
does
seem
to
say
to
piggyback
Mr
Grossman
that
are
The
Angst
among
the
board.
The
applicant
and
people
presenting
and
submitting
letters
does
seem
to
be
focused
primarily
on
that
front
setback
request.
A
Whereas
the
five
feet
for
that
very
minimum
backyard
does
not
seem
to
be
an
area
of
consternation,
I,
don't
know.
I
wanted
to
bring
this
up
with
my
fellow
board
members.
A
Great
that's
I'd,
like.
J
To
hear
well,
if
we
follow
these
five
feet
for
the
year,
15
10
feet
in
the
front.
What
is
this
time
going
to
end
up
5
10
15
20
years
from
now
as
of
five
eight
years
ago,
when
I
started
this
board
almost
10
years
ago,
we
never
considered
what
the
next
building
was
or
what
the
building
was
across
the
street
or
on
the
next
block.
What
we
had
in
front
of
us
I
don't
understand
why
we
came
now
to
this
point
where
we've
got
to
consider
five
feet
or
four
feet
or
six
feet.
J
A
C
C
A
If
you
were
not
sworn
in
sir,
you
what
or
thank
you.
N
Artemiscusathanis
541
Division,
Street
I
also
live
on
the
on
the
Block
I
know,
there's
been
some
letters
that
have
been
presented,
I,
don't
know
how
come
they
haven't
been
read
into
record.
Also
for
you
guys
to
review
I
think
that's
kind
of
important
to
be
brought
up
and
discussed
here
at
the
meeting.
Also
I'm,
very
confused
about
the
front
setback
requirements.
There's
been
different
things
that
were
said
here.
There
were
different
things
that
was
set
there.
N
There's
other
homes
that
are
being
built
now
currently
in
the
neighborhood
that
aesthetically
do
not
belong
in
in
the
historical
Sponge
Docks
area.
So
it's
very
important
that
we
try
to
not
let
things
happen
just
because
the
house
next
door
has
a
rear
setback
of
five
feet
and
you
know
they
did
it
when
they
built
it
in
the
20s
or
the
30s.
So
I
hope
you
read
the
letters
that
were
also
presented
and
sent
in.
A
A
That's
before
us
in
regards
to
setback
talking
about
those
sorts
of
things,
that's
what
goes
before
as
they
go
through
the
permitting
and
planning
process
with
the
with
the
city
staff
and
which
is
why
I
referenced
the
pending
Greektown
historic
district,
which
I
could
imagine,
would
have
a
significant
impact
and
influence
and
requirement
on
such
future
developments.
A
A
H
I
D
For
clarification,
three
of
the
letters
that
we
received
ahead
of
time
were
provided
with
your
board
packet.
We
received
one
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
that
was
emailed
to
us
this
morning
that
we
did
not
have
so
we
made
copies
for
you
for
the
meeting
tonight.
I
believe
that's
a
lot
of
the
Mr
robotsky
is
going
to
be
reading
into
the
record,
but
everything
else
was
provided
ahead
of.
C
Not
a
requirement
for
this
board
to
do
it.
It's
part
of
the
Board
of
Commissioners
procedures,
but
I
just
quickly
looked
at
yours
and
that's
not
part
of
your
your
rules
of
procedure,
the
public
comments
that
are
provided
or
for
your
consideration,
they're
for
you
to
look
at
you
know
what
other
people
are
saying
and
thinking
about
this,
and
also
really
too
for
the
applicant
to
the
extent
they
may
want
to
adjust
Things
based
on
the
public
comments
that
are
received
right,
but
primarily
they
are
for
the
board's
consideration.
A
A
Oh
yeah,
you
can
that's.
Why
that's
why?
So
with
that
and
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
the
applicant
has
received
all
of
the
letters
we
can.
I
would
like
to
give
the
applicant
the
opportunity
to
have
a
the
paper
copy
here
of
the
the
late
received
email
from
today
to
give
you
the
opportunity
to
address
any
concerns
that
may
be
related
to
that.
We
could
certainly
give
this
to
you
now.
A
We
do
have
four
letters
and
I
am
proposing,
as
you
know,
since
we
have
the
clarification
from
the
attorney
that
these
letters
have
been
presented
to
us
and
and
you
as
well
as
the
applicant
in
advance.
Three
of
the
four
have
I
would
like
to
read
the
fourth,
which
was
the
late
submission
that
you
haven't,
had
the
opportunity
to
review.
As
of
yet
yes,
sir.
A
So
this
is
the
letter
that
was
emailed
from
Georgie
Belarus
today
at
1109
A.M
dear
was
it
was
addressed
to
City
commissioners,
but
it's
presented
for
this
application.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
convey
the
concerns
of
our
community
in
the
Greektown
historic
district
city
code.
A
25-03E3
is
well
thought
out,
and
the
law
is
meant
to
preserve
our
community
from
situations
like
this.
Most
of
us
follow
the
codes.
I
myself
had
to
consolidate
three
lots
into
two
prior
to
selling
in
order
to
conform
to
current
laws.
This
did
not
happen
to
this
particular
parcel
as
the
previous
owner's
petition,
for
variance
as
a
condition
for
the
current
owner
to
purchase.
He
wanted
the
parcel
to
be
divided
into
two
non-conforming
lots
that
the
city
generously
allowed.
They
did
not
deny
the
reduction
in
set.
A
They
did
deny
the
reduction
in
setbacks
for
good
reasons.
The
current
owner
agreed
to
the
compliance
as
he
purchased
the
property.
He
is
able
to
build
houses
that
fit
onto
the
small
Lots
or
return
to
a
large
house
built
on
a
conforming
lot.
He
has
options,
reducing
front
yard
setbacks
and
green
space
has
a
negative
effect.
A
Not
only
to
the
residents
on
Division
Street,
but
to
the
entire
historic
district,
we
have
a
shortage
of
parking
and
due
to
our
location,
we
are
impacted
by
events
and
Peak
tourist
season,
as
we
get
the
spillover
from
the
Sponge
Docks.
If
the
houses
to
be
built
do
not
have
adequate
driveways,
the
cars
parked
in
the
driveways
will
block
sidewalks,
creating
a
hazard
to
pedestrians
and
bike
bicyclists
an
example
of
a
failure
to
follow
setbacks
is
the
bright
blue
house
on
East
Park
Street.
A
The
residents
cannot
park
their
cars
in
the
driveway
without
parking
at
an
angle,
therefore
causing
them
to
take
up
valuable
street
parking,
another
consequence
of
building
on
more
land
than
appropriate
as
water
runoff.
Due
to
less
permeable
surface.
We
already
have
water
runoff
issues,
particularly
on
the
south
side
of
Division
Street
and
Athens.
Street
water
currently
runs
down
the
road
flooding
our
backyards,
something
that
we
something
that
will
get
worse
with
a
non-conforming
front
yard
that
could
absorb
some
of
the
water
Additionally.
The
reduction
of
a
front
yard
impacts
value
negatively.
A
Granting
this
variance
will
convey
special
privileges
and
is
bad
for
precedence,
as
other
lots
are
soon
to
be
developed
on
the
street.
The
owner
of
this
lot
was
aware:
the
city
with
good
cause
denied
the
front
yard
setback
request
and
he
chose
to
purchase
it
with
those
conditions.
This
seems
like
a
questionable
manipulation
of
the
system
and
I
am
hopeful.
The
board
will
not
allow
this
if
allowed.
This
diminishes
our
home
values
not
only
on
Division
Street,
but
the
entire
Greektown
historic
district.
A
It
is
sad
that
the
character
of
our
neighborhood
will
be
will
be
its
downfall
if
maximum
profits
are
the
reason
to
alter
codes
that
most
of
us
follow.
The
board
correctly
denied
this
first
request
for
setback
and
was
very
generous
as
to
what
was
allowed
I
am
hopeful.
They
will
continue
to
preserve
the
new,
unique
historic
district.
K
I
do
want
to
respond
to
it.
A
lot
of
it
is
is
nonsense.
Okay,
what
we're
asking
for
is
is
a
few
feet,
we're
not
we're
not
going
to
go
out
to
the
sidewalk
or
the
porch
or
anything
else.
The
water
runoff
came
up
last
time.
The
water
runs
off
from
that
street.
Now
horribly.
Okay,
what
we're
not
going
to
do
is
not
going
to
change
it.
Minimal,
you'll,
never
know
the
difference.
I
mean
property
values.
K
Of
course,
property
values
are
affected,
but
they're
going
to
affect
it
in
a
positive
way,
from
what
we're
doing
not
a
negative
way.
I
mean
it's
not
like
we're
coming
in
or
asking
to
build.
You
know
an
8
000
square
foot
house
or
something
there.
It's
something
that's
going
to
fit
into
the
neighborhood
it's
going
to
designed
with
that
in
in
mind
when
we're
designing
the
house,
so
I
don't
understand
the
the
significance
of
some
of
these
things
that
that
gentleman
has
said.
I
understand
them,
but
I
think
he's
he's.
K
You
know,
he's
out
off
base
I
mean
totally
I
mean
it's
just
it's
not
the
case
yeah.
You
know
we're
talking
about.
You
know,
and
we
were
talking
about
the
front
porch
and
it
being
an
issue,
I
mean.
So
if
we
can't
encroach
past
that
15
when
feet,
we
can't
it's,
unfortunately,
no
front
for
four
porch
would
have
to
be
back
behind
that
that
line.
K
If
that's
what
it
says,
if
that's
what's
what
we
have
to
do
so
I'm
not
trying
to
manipulate
the
board,
that's
ridiculous,
I
resent
that
we've
done
a
lot
of
developing
in
Tarpon,
and
we
have
always
always
done
everything
like
we're
supposed
to.
You
know
we
work
with
the
city,
not
against
the
city,
so
I,
don't
that's
why
I
said
I
didn't
want
to
be
able
to
see
that
letter
before
it
was
read,
but
that's
okay
I
mean
you
do
what
you
all
have
to
do
over
the
guidelines.
You
have
to
follow.
J
Sir,
no
I
don't
have
a
question.
What
I?
What
I
want
to
read?
Is
this
board
of
adjustment
review
standards?
Item
number
two:
the
conditions
of
special
circumstances
peculiar
to
the
property
have
not
been
self-created
or
have
resulted
from
an
action
by
the
applicant
or
with
prior
knowledge
or
approval
of
the
applicant.
Well,
this
application
was
denied
last
year.
So
the
applicant
knows
everything
he's
aware
of
everything,
never
mind
what
the
city
said.
The
condition
of
the
property
have
not
been
self-created.
Yes,
they
have
been
self-created.
Thank
you.
K
K
A
It
is
not
a
historic
district,
it
is
not
part
of
our
criteria.
I
am
referencing
it
because
it
is
information
that
was
presented
to
us
and
I
like
to
make
it
as
a
a
point
of
notation
that
it
is
a
very
real
possibility
for
the
very
near
future.
Again,
that's
not
part
of
our
criteria.
It
is
something
that
was
included
in
the
public
comment
in
the
packet
which
you
did
receive.
K
D
Provide
just
a
little
I
just
want
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
clarity
about
the
Greek
Town
historic
plan
that
we're
working
on
because
I
just
I
don't
want
misinformation
or
assumptions
of
what's
going
to
come
out
of
that
right
now.
That
is
a
project
that
is
basically
to
go
out
to
the
community.
To
say
what
do
you
want
for
Greektown?
Do
you
want
regulations?
Do
you
not
want
regulations?
What
do
you
want
to
see?
What
do
you
not
want
to
see?
D
Do
you
want
it
to
be
an
established
historic
district,
All,
Those
Questions,
we're
going
to
the
community
to
ask
and
that
will
then
help
us
to
determine
what
will
come
out
of
it
so
I
just
don't
want
it
to
be
assumed
that
there
will
automatically
be
you
know,
design
criteria
or
different
setbacks
or
different
requirements
for
the
district
I
just
want.
This
is
kind
of
the
first
step
in
the
process.
D
What
does
the
community
want
to
see
for
this
and
that's
a
project
that
you
know
we're
just
kicking
off
now
and
we'll
take
several
months
to
go
through
it
and
we'll
go
out
to
the
community,
obviously
to
get
the
input,
but
I
just
I
want
to
provide
that
Clarity
on
the
record.
Thank
you
can
I
answer
that.
H
So
my
question
was
in
the
review
standards,
the
setback
variants
that
was
in
our
packets
and
up
on
the
screen
number
five,
granting
the
variance
will
not
substantially
diminish
property
values
in
the
surrounding
area.
Substantially
interfere
with
or
into
the
rights
of
others
of
property
would
be
affected
by
approval
of
the
variance,
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
create
nuisance.
My
question
was:
are
we
to?
Is
this
board
supposed
to
be
considering
the
essence
of
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
vis-a-vis,
a
style
of
home?
H
C
Part
of
the
reason
why
she
gave
the
comparison
of
how
all
the
houses
are
set
further
back
and
why
the
backyards
are
a
little
bit
closer
in
is
because
of
that
criteria,
otherwise,
other
than
that
the
property
is
treated
as
its
own
specific
own.
C
Unique
parcel
right
and
also
too
I
believe
that
there
was
an
interpretation
from
staff
on
the
provision
being
self-created
or
the
the
non-conformity
being
self-created.
That
was
addressed
in
the
staff
report.
I
believe.
D
Yes,
for
criteria,
two
yeah
and
again
this
kind
of
goes
back
to
you
know
staff's
perspective
that
you
know
this
is
a.
This
is
a
historic
lot
of
record
that
was
also
determined
by
the
board,
meaning
that
it's
smaller
than
what
would
be
required
today.
So
we
looked
at
it
from
that
standpoint
of
the
physical
law
itself
is
what
was
one
of
the
special
circumstances
that
was
not
self-created.
They
didn't
plot
the
property
in
that
way.
That
was
our
perspective.
G
A
A
C
K
Sir
okay,
in
what
the
staff
said,
a
lot
of
those
homes
are
already
closer
than
that
15
16
feet
17
feet.
It's
all
mixed!
So
we're
not
like
wanting
to
move
way
out
of.
What's
already
out
there.
You
know
I
mean
and
by
doing
it
with
the
the
garage
setback,
we're
not
going
to
be
on
the
street.
K
You
know
we're
moving
everything
back
to
to
alleviate
that
situation,
which
was
brought
up
last
time.
Everyone
was
concerned
and
rightfully
so
it's
a
narrow,
Street,
very
narrow.
You
know
two
cars
part
one
on
the
left,
one
or
right
you
cannot
get
through.
No,
it's
it's
just
there's
not
enough
space.
J
J
K
B
C
And
you
also
do
have
options
you
do
not
have
to
Grant
the
entirety.
If
you
were
looking
to
Grant
it,
you
did
not.
You
do
not
have
to
Grant
the
entirety
of
it,
so
you
can
deny
just
a
portion
of
it.
That's
up
to
you
and
how
you
how
you
are
taking
the
evidence
in
its
application
to
the
code.
So
if
you
think
that
for,
for
instance,
the
front
should
maintain
that
they
would
still
have
that
ability
to
build
that
10-foot
porch
into
that
front
setback,
but
then
Grant
the
rear
step
back.
A
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
to
deny
front
and
and
rear
yeah,
we'll
say
lot.
Nine
lot.
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
for
denying
application
number
2321,
which
is
in
reference
to
Lot
number
nine,
which
is
the
the
West
lot.
A
J
G
A
J
J
A
I
I
D
I'm
trying
to
pull
them
up
here.
That
was
an
intent
to
include
it.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
it
was
in
there.
M
A
Yeah,
so
so
it
would
be
that
that
motion
would
be
to
approve
the
reduced
rear
yard
setback
of
to
10
feet.
That
would
that
was
the
actual
motion
that
was
then
approved.
Correct.
M
D
Based
off
the
the
notes
that
I
have
from
the
meeting
I,
don't
believe
the
board
made
any
formal
motion
or
took
any
action
on
accepting
a
withdrawal.
The
applicant
in
his
testimony,
indicated
that
he
he
believed
he
could
meet
the
setback
requirement,
and
so
he
wanted
to
withdraw
that
request.
So
it
wasn't
considered
by
the
board
if
we
need
to
reflect
it
in
a
clearer
way
in
the
minutes,
I'll
defer
to
the
board
or
the
attorney
well,.
C
So
on
this
one
there
were
separate.
It
appears
from
the
record
that
there
were
separate
motions
and
there
was
one
to
approve
it
as
the
non-conforming
lot,
one
to
approve
the
reduced
rear
yard
setback,
to
approve
the
front
yard
setback
at
16
feet
and
to
approve
the
open,
unenclosed
porch
for
the
front
setback
of
six
feet.
C
A
A
So
there
is
kind
of
in
that
top
third
of
page
four
Miss
Rich.
It
looks
like
there
is
the.
A
I
J
C
So
I
haven't
I,
actually
haven't
seen
what
your
chairman
signs,
but
usually
that's
what
they'll
see
that's
what
goes
and
accompanies
their
their
application
when
they
go
through
site
plan
and
when
you
see
what's
what
they
sign
as
long
as
it
it
comports
with
this,
and
it
has
those
specific
four
motions:
I
can
take
a
look
at
it
afterwards,
but
that's
the
document
that
accompanies
everything.
So
if
it
accurately
reflects
these
four
motions,
these
four
motions
are
what
were
passed.
If
they
didn't
pass
anything
regarding
what
was
withdrawn,
then
it's
not
granted.
Okay,.
A
J
E
D
It's
not
the
policy
to
do
that,
so
your
your
variance
is
strictly
for
that
property,
but
some
of
the
criteria
talks
about
altering
like
we
mentioned
altering
the
central
character,
the
surrounding
area.
Is
it
going
to
negatively
impact
around
the
area
so
when
we
review
it
from
a
staff
level,
we
like
to
give
you
some
context
to
take
into
consideration.
It's
not
saying
because
this
property
next
door
has
a
smaller
setback.
This
one's
entitled
to
it.
Our
intention
is.
D
May
be
what
his
interpretation,
but
when
you
read
it,
it
basically
states
that
we
looked
at
the
setbacks
in
this
area.
To
give
you
context
of
these
are
the
average
setbacks
that
we
saw?
This
is
what
for
your
consideration
about
in
From
staff's
perspective,
we
felt
that
it
was
that
it
did
fit
with
the
context
of
the
area
for
that
criteria.
Five,
but
based
off
testimony
and
everything
you
received
at
the
board,
the
board
had
their
opinion.
D
D
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from,
but
for
variance
applications
and
variance
process
the
applicants.
So
what
the
borders
to
take
into
consideration
is
the
applicants
materials
their
application,
their
site
plans,
whatever
materials
they
provide?
Then
you're
also
supposed
to
take
into
consideration
the
expert
testimony,
which
is
the
staff
in
this
case
and
our
interpretation
of
the
codes
and
application
of
the
criteria
and
then
you're
also
supposed
to
take
into
consideration.
What's
heard
of
the
meeting
and
the
public
comment
to
go
into
your
decision,
these
are
all
pieces
that
you
have
to
take
into
consideration.
D
By
no
means
does
staff
ever
tell
an
applicant
that
this
is
a
shoe-in.
This
is
a
guarantee.
We
say
these
are
preliminary
findings.
This
is
a
preliminary
recommendation
if
they
want
to
believe
that
that's
gold,
then
that's
their
interpretation,
but
that's
not
the
intent,
and
we
don't
ever
portray
that
to
the
applicants.
J
A
Well,
we
certainly
do
have
challenges
in
front
of
us
and
that's
where
you
know
looking
at
the
review
standards
that
we
have
that
we
are
all
very
well
familiar
with
at
this
point.
It
can
be
challenging
and
that's
where
I
always
kind
of
describe
to
folks
what
we
do.
It's
we
bring
that
human
element
to
it.
Where
sometimes
it
is
that
logical,
Viewpoint.
You
know
we
always
reference.
Thinking
of
you
know
a
screen
cage
over
a
pool
of
you
know.
A
Someone
needs
a
variance
because
the
original
pool
was
built
in
the
70s
80s
before
codes
change.
It
would
be
completely
illogical
to
move
a
pool
six
feet
or
you
know
six
inches
a
foot
we've
had
those
before
us,
where
we
don't
have
any
particular
danger
or
adverse
effects.
If
you
plugged
it
into
a
computer,
it
would
say
no
you're
at
you
know,
10
feet,
8
inches
and
you
must
be
11.
we're
here
as
The
Logical,
human
to
say
the
two
inches.
This
does
not
make
sense.
So
that's
why
we
are
here
today.
G
D
I
believe
it's
three
unexcused
absences
I
think
our.
D
I
M
I
M
G
A
So
Mr
Grossman,
thank
you
so
much
for
stepping
up
today,
always
a
pleasure
having
you
and
your
contributions.
So
seeing
no
other
staff
comment,
we
will
adjourn
at
7
55.