[Music]
We ready team? Good evening. Welcome to the April Board of Adjustment meeting. For those of you in the audience who haven't been to one of these before, please allow me to review our ground rules. Uh, as we proceed through the agenda, staff will
introduce each item for consideration. If you'd like to speak on a matter and you're not the applicant, either for or against it, there's a form out in the lobby we'd like you all to fill out, please. And you hand it to the clerk to my left. The applicant applicant supporters will be heard first. Those in
opposition will be heard next. And if there's a necessity, the applicant has a chance for rebuttal. Comments should be restricted to pertinent information before us. We don't want to hear personal disputes, homeowners associ association disputes, or anything like
that. Uh if you're an individual and you're not the applicant, you'll have three minutes to speak. If you represent a group, you'll have six minutes. Uh, and as we start moving along the agenda, as we start getting closer to your item, we found it's kind of helpful if you start moving down towards the podium,
uh, when you do speak, if you do speak, uh, please, uh, give us your name and your address for the record. Uh, and we ask that each speaker be given, uh, courteous and respectful attention. Uh, we may ask questions of staff, we may ask questions of you.
Don't be surprised. That's just how we help work towards our decisions. Uh any information that you share that's not already in the packet uh will be kept as part of the record. If you have something that's digital, uh we can see that too. We just ask after the meeting if you please send a copy to staff so
it's kept in the record. Uh once we go through all of that, I will ask the board for their motion. Once a motion has been made and seconded, discussion from the floor will be closed. Uh and a vote will be taken. During the vote, uh,
members who do not publicly state their vote will be to consider will be considered to have voted in favor of the item. And once this is all done, if something has ended in a way with which you're not happy, there is an appeal process to the county commission. And after the meeting, staff can help you
with that process. Having said that, number one, please. Good evening. For the record, Megan Zenorski, project coordinator for planning. This variance request is for 1982 Longwood Lake Mary Road, which is in the R1 zoning district and within the
Platted subdivision of Longwood Park. The applicant is seeking one, a front yard setback variance from the required 25 ft to 24.6 ft and two, a southside street setback variance from the required 25 ft to 0 feet for a 6-ft tall
privacy fence. The subject property is a corner lot and as such is considered to have two front yards for setback purposes. The front of the house faces Longwood Lake Mary Road. The fence is subject to code enforcement violation CV23-299. The fence is 19 ft from the
edge of pavement along Ruth Boulevard and traffic engineering has no objection to the placement of the existing fence. The vents will be required to meet all requirements at the time of permitting, including an estoppel letter for any easements. The subject property has no prior variances. That concludes my
presentation. I'm available for any additional questions. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, any questions for staff? Seeing none, is the applicant here? Chair would entertain a motion to continue this to the end of the agenda. Motion second. Those opposed. We'll say
it passes by acclamation number two, please. Good evening. Megan Zenorski, project coordinator for planning. This variance request is for 3440 Dawn Court, which is located in the R1BB zoning district within the platted
subdivision of Astra Grand at Lake Forest. The applicant is seeking one, a size variance from 1,851 square ft to 2,929 square ft and two, a height variance from 16 ft to 24 ft 1 in for
proposed detached two-story accessory structure. The applicant has submitted seven letters of support, which were provided with the agenda packet. The subject property received a variance in 2017 for a front yard setback variance from 30 feet to 0 feet for fence
columns. That concludes my presentation. I am available for additional questions. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, questions for staff. Yes, service. Um, does Simino County as part of our code, does it use any sort of uh terminology like subservient ADUs must be subservient to
the primary dwelling? Do you mean smaller than smaller? So I I used to sit on Winter Springs P&Z and I you know I'm not trying to add too much into that but that was one of the clear language differentiate is that the the ADU had to be clearly subservient
um you know similar driveway. It had you know certain ratios of what it could be for square footage things like that. So the an ADU at permitting will be required to meet all um accessory dwelling unit requirements. Um they've applied for administrative adjustment
for size. um they will be required to to utilize the same driveway. They have a maximum with the administrative adjustment of 1,100 square ft. Um so all of the permitting requirements um will go through the planning manager um for
final approval. Okay. Okay. Answer your question. Yes, sir. Any other questions? Mr. Lev, it looked like you were thinking there. Okay. Uh is the applicant here? Yes, sir. you please come on down please. I know this
I have I have a quick question. The others might also have you the podium please sir and and share with us your name and address. Todd Justin 3440 Dong Court Lake Mary Florida. Before I ask mine gentlemen, do you have any questions?
All right, just real quick. I I I really like that you you reached out to your neighbors and and they shared and that's I wish more folks would do that and that's great. Just quick question. And I noticed your neighbor to the west, uh, there's not a yes or no from them and they seem to be one of the affected. I'm just curious if you chatted with
them. Um, he hasn't been around. He's now one of the most social guys in the world. He's got his cars and they kind of keep to themselves. They're right on the main road, so they weren't home, but we have no animosity with them or they're act don't really know that every
neighborhood has folks like that. Now what you mean? U gentlemen, any other questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there anyone here in the audience to speak in support of this application? Seeing none, anyone here to speak in opposition?
Oh, yes, ma'am. Um, I'm Kathy Kruki and I live behind that. Oh, I'm sorry. If you want to speak, if you come down to the podium, please. Are you speaking in support or opposition? Well, I just would like to know. Come down to the podium. Then we'll that way we can all record. If you share with us, please
your name and address. My name is Kathy Bruski and I live at 1625 Rockdale Loop and that is right behind him. And I would just really like to know what um is being built there if if I have the right to that information.
I mean, I don't know if I'm for or against it. Um I just know I got a letter in the mail that there was a meeting tonight. So, will you Well, I I know you you'd come in a few minutes late. Uh then and staff did did share the the project through the screen as
we're going through this. Uh if if maybe I'm trying to think of a quick way you could chat with someone while we do the rest of our thing. Does anyone have a a loose hard copy pack? Oh, Miss Megan is going to save the day. Thank you so much for doing that.
You have to if you could please just before you leave tonight, ma'am, if you could fill out that form that the clerk just handed to you. Are they building another house? No, it's an accessory. So, it's a detached garage at the bottom. And then basically, it's an
apartment to live on the second floor. I take the approach that sometimes democracy is a little slow and sloppy and we can we can roll with that. So that's a doorway and then the detached garage and it exceeds the height and because we
have the total square footage exceeds the 50% that they're allowed. So are is is that zoned in a single family? Um well T why don't you take a look at that and then if you have any questions we or the staff can can answer
them rather than just kind of peace meal. garage that's on the first floor. Yes, sir. Well, let's wait till we just like have all the questions rather than twotory building exceeds the footage
allowed. So, if it was a one story because it's a twotory, that's why there height and All right. So, having said that, if if you share your question now,
um I think my question was more I just wanted to really understand what what was going on because it's it is right behind me and it um you know I'll be able to see it from my eye and I'm not you know necessarily post I just um
wanted to know what what was going on and he hadn't reached out to me so that's why I'm here. So, I will think about this. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. I'm going to step back a little bit here and say anyone else to speak in support of the application. Seeing none, anyone
here to speak in opposition? Seeing none, gentlemen, your pleasure. Uh, move to approve. We have a motion to approve from Mr. Beley. Uh, second by the judge. All those in favor? I. Those opposed? Enjoy it.
Number three, please. Good evening. Megan Zenorski, project coordinator for planning. This variance request is for 684 Tomlinson Terrace, which is in the PD zoning district in the Lakewood at the crossings unit 4 subdivision. The applicant is seeking a
southeast side street variance from the required 20 ft to 2.5 ft for a 6ft privacy fence. The subject property is a corner lot and as such is considered to have two front yards for setback purposes. The front of the house faces
Tomlinson Terrace. The starstone drive side is where the variance is being sought. The proposed fence is 4 and 1/2 ft from the edge of sidewalk and 17 ft from the edge of pavement and traffic engineering has no objection to the placement of the fence as it relates to
sight visibility. There was an error in my staff report. This fence is a subject of code enforcement case CB25-81 for unpermitted construction of fence windows and doors. I provided the notice of violation and photos for the board on the
dis. The subject property has had no prior variances. One letter of objection was received from 7 or excuse me from 6:30 Brookfield Loop which was placed on the dice as well as a map showing the proximity of the letter of objection to
the property owner. That concludes my presentation. I am available for additional questions. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, any questions for staff? Seeing none, is the applicant here? Please, sir, come on down. You share with us just real quick your
name and address, please. Sure. My name is Omar Nasim and I'm at 684 Tomlinson Terrace, Lake Mary, Florida. Gotcha. Gentlemen, any questions? Is there anything you'd like to add to what staff had said, sir? There is one mistake. Uh the offset on the starstone is only
5T. It's not 20 ft. Question for staff then. Does that correspond to the application? So traffic engineering is permitted to reduce the side street setback to five feet per code but the actual setback
that's required is that 20 ft. So because he does not meet the setback it is a 20 foot required setback to the 2 and 1/2 ft which is what it the variance is. Gotcha. Thank you ma'am. I guess Mr.
to see my my question is it seems like the the the reason for the application is because your contractor made a mistake. Why not have the contractor fix it? It's it's their problem, their cost. They are
gone. So now it's my problem as it closed. Yeah. Well, as if I'm not going to pick up your phone call because I've picked up my last payment. But u it's there's a house directly across
the street that it's 5T as well. Um there is also a house on South Sundance that's also 5T. Um when I told him this, I told him to check and it was supposed to be 5T from the property line. He did
five feet from the sidewalk which put it a foot and a half over the offset. Then I did speak with um the building and planning zone and I reiterated the 5-ft setback was the correct setback for
Starstone and the 20 foot was for Tomlinson. Um so she said you're over by a foot and a half. you've gonna have to apply for a variance before the permit would go through. When when we're on here, my biggest
thing is is equality is making sure that when we make decisions, it's it's equal to to, you know, to everybody. And one of the biggest things I know that means a lot to me is the hardship is finding out how did this place a hardship? Well, the this old fence was on my property before I wanted to put something new. I
didn't know that it was um it needed a variance for it. So, they walked into the they bought into the problem kind of thing. When it when it comes down to and I'm not going to get in the middle of a of a business dispute between you and a and a vendor, but um it's
uh that the business is still open is what I'm hearing. Correct. The business he's just not answering your call. It was a cont operator contractor. It was not a business, but they're still around. Correct. The person's still around. He is still around. Correct. Okay. Thank
you, sir. Well, make no mistake, an owner, oper operator, contractor is still a business even if he's a sole proprietor, right? But if he still exists, uh I mean, it's an individual. He's fair game for whatever you might need to do if it doesn't pass here
today. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm this is going to be a move on my expense at my expense if if the variance doesn't go through. Yeah, it's it's a terrible thing. I mean, I think I can speak for everybody up here is nobody wants to put any resident through that because that's not
fair to you. But then again, it's also fair uh in fairness with the rest of the county of everyone that does come with the variances as well that and trust me, you're not the first or the last that a cond contractor has done a no no and then they have to go ahead and correct it or went out of business or whatever.
We hear it all the time up here and it really is a shame um the situation. So, I'm I'm sorry that it happened to you, right? I'm trying to get more of the backyard um sideyard into the backyard because we've got a baby coming, a grandchild that's going to be back
there. So, that was kind of the whole motivation of doing this. Um I still would like to try to get as much of the backyard in. So, if I did have to move it, what would be the proper setback for that side of the
street? Is it 5 foot or is it 20 foot? because that's a big difference. Staff, it would be 5T from the property line. So, which portion if approved by traffic engineering. If approved by traffic engineering. So, that puts me a foot and a half over right now the way it sits
right now. And it's only portions of it that are a foot and a half. Most of it, you know, not being a good contractor, you didn't measure correctly. So, most of it is actually within 5T. There's only the corner in the front and the corner in the back
that kind of approaches the sidewalk and gets a little closer. And that's where I'm one and a half ft over. Gentlemen, any other questions? Is there a fence there now? There is a fence there. Yeah, it's a code violation. And
it's right, but the code violation came after Brent drove by. He saw the variance. He He saw the variance, then he drove by. Then I got the code violation, but I had been in in the offices of permitting back in October uh
or I'm sorry, November when this first happened. Um trying to get a permit. Um and that's where the whole variance thing came up and that's why I'm here. What is the length of the fence that will be in violation? How
many feet? Well, the portions that are in violation probably are about 20t in the front and 20t in the back. The length of the fence is probably about 80 feet maybe, maybe a little less. Gentlemen, any other questions?
Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in support of the matter? Is there anyone in the audience to speak in opposition? We'll close the floor then. Seeing none, gentlemen, your pleasure. [Applause]
Let me share a thought that I had on this. I was going to say I was going to make a motion so we can get into discussion. So my my two thoughts always and you guys have heard me say this a lot. One is I generally feel like you know the rules of the game are the rules of the
game. We all live by them. And if someone wants to change the rules but their neighbors object and we do have one neighbor objecting then it's kind of reverting back to well then we stay by the rules. But the other thought is and if I you know dangerous thing but if I put my lawyer hat on I think there are
remedies for people who are done wrong by a contractor if they're done by a professional and I think if we start allowing and I know there's a danger to talk about precedent and nothing is a precedent but just if it is known that this board is sympathetic to a
contractor made a mistake so you can get away with violating the code that might be an incentive that we don't want to have out there. Uh, and so just those are my thoughts on it. My questions, have you discussed with your colle? We closed your judge. I'm
sorry. Oh, sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah. Shame. I mean, going off of that, like I said, I I'm going to make a motion to deny. You have a motion to deny. Is there a second? Second. A second for Mr. Levant. All those in favor of the motion tonight say
I. We have discussion there first. Do you all do you all want to disc? I'm sorry. You I had a question. Yes, sir. If you talk with your contract discussion, judge close from inputs. So, we just talk amongst ourselves. Okay. Well, my my Who am I talking to now? Well, you can talk amongst us sort
of. Okay. I can talk to myself. I do that. My question is is if you inquired of the is he inquired of the contractor the expense of putting those 8 ft of fence in conformity?
Sounds like it would be the contractor's problem. Well, I mean if he that well we're he's talking about it's his problem to find and pursue the contractor. Meanwhile, he can do self-help and still have a basis for the
action. My question was, has he has he inquired of his contractor how deep the hole is as far as what it's going to cost him to put that section 18? He's and and the the resident had answered that he's not
returning calls anymore. No. So, another fence contract. Oh, okay. Somebody else who can give him an estimate is to I can only put the fence this close to the property line. I got point A to point B. what's it going to cost me to put the
fence here? And then he may after he get sees that sees what I'm not going to tell what kind of experience he's going to have from it, but I'm saying it sounds like information he's going to have to have anyway if he pursues the contractor
to put the fence up to uh to claim his damages. He's gonna have to have somebody tell. Mr. chair, the the thing that it is and and and I'm basically putting it out there for anybody that is watching is is with contractors is I'm I the residents always are the ones to
take this on the chin. They're always the ones that have to spare out the expense because of a bad contractor. It's not the first time that we've seen this. We've asked we've asked the BCC to go ahead and try to do something like make some stiffer rules or laws, etc. But it's the residents of Seminal that
always have this problem. They are always the ones when we look like kind of the bad guys are in denying this but we're following the rags and the rules of that are set forth that we have to but I just I'm the residents and that's just me on a soap box are always the ones that are having to be punished for
this. You're totally right. I think you you say it happens I think it happens almost every single meeting especially with fences. It's generally because the contractor has pulled a fast one u and yeah it is it is terrible and and it's a lawyer empower empowerment thing. uh
when I see something like that, but I think that has to be that first step is going after the contractor rather than seeking a change of the rules. But that's just me. Okay. Yes, sir. And I do have a quick question for staff. So, let's say, you know, we he had gone through the process. Would he have
needed the variance to go to the five foot for the fence? No, that's done internally. Um Okay. During permit review, we internally route it to traffic engineering. Okay. And since traffic engineering had no issue with the reduced um to 2 and 1/2 ft, it would
be approved at 5T. Okay. But let's assume he came through the proper process in the beginning prior to the fence. Would he have still had to go? Cuz like I know it was already done after the fact. Is that kind of what I'm hearing that because they would have because they approved the 2 and 1/2 they would have
necessarily approved the five or would he have had to gone for the five foot fair variance in the beginning? It's not a variance. It's an internal. So what we do is so if he came in So if he came in not needing uh setbacks say showed it at zero, we
would um guide them to reduce it to five saying if you want to reduce it to five, please show that on your site plan indicating the five foot setback. Um or if you choose to do it at zero, please apply for a variance. We give them that
option if it's not code enforcement. And if they do reduce it to the five, then we automatically internally route it to traffic engineering for review. Gotcha. Okay. Okay. I think it's time to call the vote unless you all disagree. All those in favor of the motion to deny the
application say I. I. I. Opposed. Opposed. All right. It it passes with one descent from the judge. Uh number four, please. By the way, sir, if you want to appeal what we have our denial here, uh
you do have that option and staff can talk to you about that after the meeting. Thank you. Good evening. Megan Zenorski, project coordinator for planning. This variance request is for 4168 Leafy Glade Place,
which is in the PD zoning district in the Deer Run unit 12B subdivision. The applicant is seeking a rear yard setback variance from the required 25 ft to 17 ft for a 224 square f foot screen room
addition 8 ft x 24 ft in size. The subject property has had no prior variances. That concludes my presentation. I am available for any additional questions. Is this replacing the existing screen? This looks like from the area. It looks like in the back there's a screen, but I
could be looking at it incorrectly. I was looking at the same thing. Yeah, this is a screen room that looks like a screen enclosure, but or or rephrase the question then. Is this then I tell you what I I'll ask the applicant then and um but just a second.
Uh any other questions of staff? Seeing none. Yes, sir. Please, if you'd share with us your name and address for the record. Sure. Tony Tony Beal Aqua 4168 Leafy Gay Place. I'm the owner and applicant and I did bring the contract here just in case. And to answer your question, yes,
right now there's a very large canopy screen in patio that's got about I think a 7.9 ft setback. I want a much smaller lower roofed patio so I can be out of the sun and out of the rain, have my coffee. Is this in addition to what's
there? Are you going to take No, we're rem we're removing that, ripping it out and putting in a smaller one. Wow. I'm not. It's set up for a pool. I'm not a pool guy. I'm the only person in for who's not a pool guy. It's just the rules have changed since the house was built and uh strikes me. Anything else you'd like to add? No, sir. Gentlemen,
questions. Is he telling us that it might rain soon? That's what I I'm hoping. My grass if we approve. I would judge. Any questions? Well, yeah. You're replacing a larger screen. Yes, sir. With a smaller screen in area, but with a with an aluminum roof for the
for the weather. Yeah, that'll sound nice. If it ever rains, I'd offer you to come over. I don't want to sway the uh committee. You just invited all Siminal County over. Drinks on me. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you, guys. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in
support of the matter? Anyone in the audience to speak in opposition? Seeing none, gentlemen, move to approve, Mr. Chair. Move to approve, Mr. Beley. We have a second. Second from the judge. All those in favor? I opposed. All right. Enjoy, sir.
We'll be over soon. Number five. Oh, there we go. Good evening. Megan Zenorski, project coordinator for planning. This variance request is for 12000 Alberta Street which is in the R1A zoning district in the San Lando Spring
track number 15 second replat subdivision. The applicant is seeking an east side street setback variance from the required 25 ft to 0 feet for a 6-ft privacy fence. The subject property is a corner lot and as such is considered to
have two front yards for setback purposes. The front of the house faces Alberta Street. The Mara Avenue side is where the variance is being sought. The proposed fence is 17 ft from the edge of pavement and there are no sidewalks. Traffic engineering has no objection to
the placement of the fence as it relates to site visibility. Two letters of support were received for the proposed variance and were included as attachments to my staff report. The subject property has had no prior variances. One letter of objection was
received from 6:30. I'm sorry that's not for this one. Uh that concludes my presentation. I am available for additional questions. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, questions for staff? Yes. Yes, sir. Mr. L. So, there's been no letter of objection. No,
there hasn't. I'm sorry. No problem. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Anything you'd like to add, ma'am, to what staff had said? Okay. We're just Well, if you do want to speak, I need you to come down, but if if you don't want to, you don't have to. I did.
Gentlemen, do you all have questions? Yeah, please come on down. And if you'd share with this man, please, your name and address for the record. Yeah, I'm short. Um, D. Henrik Sturm,
1200 Alberta Street, Longwood. Judge. Yes. Now, uh, are you next to the property? No. She's the applicant. I'm the applicant. Oh, excuse me. Okay. Well, this Well, then the fence you want to put goes right up to the road.
No. Basic the fence is already there. When the hurricane was last October, it knocked down a whole bunch of it. And we're just trying to replace the fence that was there when we moved in the house. You're putting the fence back where the old one was. Yeah. I mean,
it's okay. You know, propped up with, you know, all sorts of How long had the other fence been there? It was there when we moved in in 200 five. Okay. This is just fix and repair. Yeah.
Basically, well, and replacing the whole replace. Yeah, we we've Yeah. Any other questions, gentlemen? Thank you, ma'am. Anyone in the audience to speak in support of this application? Seeing none, anyone here to speak in
opposition? Seeing none, gentlemen. Chair move to approve. Mr. Evans is moved to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. with a second. All those in favor? I opposed. All right. Enjoy, ma'am. Number six.
Good evening. Megan Senorski, project coordinator for planning. This variance request is for 940 Lake Markham Road, which is in the RC1 zoning district. The applicant is seeking a north sideyard setback variance from the required 20 ft to 5 ft for a shed. The proposed shed is
120 square ft 10 by 12 ft. One letter of support was received for the proposed variance by the directly affected neighbor to the north and was included as an attachment to my staff report. That concludes my presentation. I am available for any additional questions. Thank you, ma'am.
Any questions for staff? All right. Is the applicant here? Is there anything you'd like to add, sir? Do you all have y'all have questions for the applicant? All right. Anyone here in the audience to speak in support of this? Seeing none, anyone here to speak in
opposition? Seeing none, gentlemen approve. Judges move to approve. Is there a second? Second. Second from Mr. Beley. Not too fast. Sorry. A motion to approve from the judge. Approved by Mr. Beley. Uh, all those in
favor? I opposed. Enjoy, sir. Number six. Strike that. Number seven. This item is being continued. I And I was even told that. I've got a note right there. I'm sorry. Number eight. Seven is off the docket. We're continued
on seven. Got it. I had a good question, but you know, I did too, man. I was going to have fun. Megan Gez, we have different ideas of fun. Number eight, Miss Gates, are you up for that? I am. Item number eight, excuse me, Angie Gates, for the record.
Item number eight is a request for a fence height variance from 6 and a half feet to 8 feet in the R1A single family dwelling district. The subject properties located in the estates at Aloma Woods phase 2 subdivision located at 5729 Oak Lake
Trail. The existing 90 linear feet of 8 foot tall privacy fence is 1 and 1/2 ft over the maximum allowable height. The estates at Aloma Woods Homeowners Association approved the privacy fence and one letter of support was received from the neighbors directly behind where
the variance is being sought and that was placed on the dis evening. A building permit uh 2416748 has been submitted and should the board decide to approve the
variance, the permit can be approved. Um, there have not been any prior variances for this subject property. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, questions for staff. Is the applicant here? Oh, goodness. I had a question. Oh, no.
Traffic was horrible out there. Chair will entertain a motion to continue this to the end of the agenda. Second. No objection. We'll say it passes by acclamation. We'll come back to it. Number nine. Okay. Item number nine is a request for one, a sideyard west setback
variance from 10 ft to 6 ft for an existing detached garage and two a sideyard west setback variance from 10 ft to 6 ft for an existing detached carport. and three, a sideyard north setback variance from 10 ft to 1 ft for
an existing detached carport in the R1A single family dwelling district in the San Lando Springs subdivision located at 1540 Hopson Street. The property is a corner lot and considered to have two front yards for
setback purposes. The existing 981.72 ft detached garage encroaches 4 feet into the required west sideyard setback. The existing 365.5 ft detached carport encroaches 4
feet into the required west sideyard setback and 9 ft into the required north sideyard setback. In 1985, the owner of the property at the time hired a contractor to pull the required building permits and construct the detached
garage for unknown reasons. The permit was never inspected and the permit expired. No permits were located for the detached carport. However, if the carport is older than 1985, staff would not be able to locate permit records. It
is unknown if the carport structure ever received a building permit. The current property owner would like to bring the existing structure structure into compliance with Simol County Land Development Code in order to convert a portion of the detached garage into an accessory dwelling unit for an elderly
family member. Under the current Seminal County Land Development Code, ADUs are permitted are permitted use within the R1A zoning district. Converting a portion of the garage into an ADU in the future will require a building permit, site plan approval, and approval of all
required building inspections. In 1984, a front yard setback variance was approved from 25 ft to 17 ft for a porch. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, questions for staff. All right. Is our applicant here?
Yes, sir. All right. If you please share with us your name and address for the record. My name is Shad Smith and I am at 1540 Hopson Street. What would you like to add to what staff shared, sir? Um, well, this is on the X golf course hole there. That shows it well. So, I think even
when this was built, you can look back in aerials. The 50 75 ft beyond that was trees. And so, when it was built, there was no visibility. since the golf course has gone away. It's, you know, it's kind of pushed it down some, but Semino
County doesn't even maintain that. I maintain 15 ft past that anyways. So, um, that's why I was surprised it was so close in the end. But when we bought the home too, we intended all along possibly if my dad got worse, that's where we were planning on doing it. And that's what we're trying to do is give my dad a
place that's not, you know, in a poor a nursing home someplace or something like that. But that's it. That is that is the nationwide trend. That's for sure. Gentlemen, questions for the applicant. Did you chat with your neighbors about this? Um, I've chatted with the one. Um,
I didn't really I've now realized I probably should have chat with them about it, but I hadn't thought about it. I know a number of them have stopped and all read the signs because everybody walks around. It's very, you know, social community in Rolling Hills there. So, got it. All right. Well, thank you,
sir. Mhm. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in support of this application? Seeing none, anyone here to speak in opposition? Seeing none, gentlemen, I actually have one last question for staff if it's okay. Oh, please go ahead.
Um, so, so I'm seeing two different roofs, re-roof permits here. So, I mean, our county has ostensibly been to the property since 1985 and inspected potentially this roof of this nonp permitted
non varian structure. That's that's building, right? But I mean, okay. Um, then never mind then. No, no, go ahead. Go ahead and ask. I mean, I guess that's that's the first time I was wrong. So, yeah, I mean that's kind of where I'm at. H how does this come to be? You know, in
in 2025 when we've been out there in 18 and 21 on their roof, not all inspectors check for all permits to see if everything existing has been permitted or done. I I really can't speak for the building department, so I don't know. Okay. We could have caught
it if those type of building permits went to zoning at that time, but we wouldn't have reviewed a re- roof. Okay. And so that's we would have captured it with building permit, but so the roof was approved based on roofing standards, but it wasn't Okay. All right, that makes sense then. Okay, left hand, right
hand. Yeah, pretty much. All right. Uh, did I ask audience? Yes, your pleasure. Uh, chair move to approve. Mr. Evans moves to approve. Is there a second? Second from the judge.
Okay. All those in favor? I opposed. All right, enjoy. Number 10, halfway through. Item number 10 is a request for one, a north side street setback variance from 25 ft to zero feet and two, an existing
front yard setback variance from 25 ft to 0 feet for fencing columns and gates that exceed 4t in height in the R1 AAA single family dwelling district and the Sweetwater Club unit one subdivision located at 200 Riverview
Drive. The subject property is a corner lot considered to have two front yards for setback purposes. the front of the house. The way the house was built, sort of faces both street sides, there are two types of fencing
located on the property. There's a 6-foot wood or excuse me, rock privacy fence and a 5-ft open metal fence with 6ft arched metal gates. The gates are attached to the concrete columns, each column having a light fixture at the top
totaling a height of 6 feet 1 inch in height. The existing fencing and columns located on the north property line are 31 ft from the edge of pavement and the fencing and columns located on the east property line are 35 ft from the edge of pavement. There are no sidewalks in
place within the Sweetwater Club unit one subdivision. Traffic engineering has no objection to the placement of the fence as it relates to site visibility. A building code violation BV uh 25-29 was issued for the fencing and
columns being constructed prior to the building building permit being issued and there have not been any prior variances for the subject property. This concludes my presentation. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, questions for staff. Miss Gates, did I read correctly that
this was erected without a permit? It was, but it I'll have the property owner explain to you when they come up. It's it's same situation with a contractor. Well, is the is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Please, we want to hear your
story. And if you share with us your name and address for the record, please. Nishan Bgeria, 200 Riverview, uh, Longwood. Tell us the story, please. Same situation. Uh we thought the contractor had the permit. After 10 months, we found out that the fence was
never issued a permit after we moved into the house. So it wasn't right away. After 10 months, I got a letter from county saying the fence was never issued a permit and they're no longer in business. this sort of the company off
and uh the new company doesn't want to take over the project to even come on explain the situation here gentlemen questions I carry I carry my soap box from the last one to this one as well got you
thank you sir goodness is there anyone here to speak in support of the matter Anyone here to speak in opposition? Gentlemen, let's just discuss this for a second before we call a motion. I don't
want to be the bad guy twice. I know. I I just I Judge, you were going to say something. The changes requested are already in place. Yes. Yes. They're trying to ratify what what was done without a permit.
I think just I feel like a lot of times there there is a part of me feels like my goodness these people are so getting taken advantage of but at the same time you know there are causes of action out there for these kinds of things and I'm not sure if uh seeking variances in lie
of litigation is the right course of action. It's rewarding bad behavior what you permit you promote. That's perfect for couldn't say better. That's for my wife, by the way. I'll give her due credit for that. Mr. Leont, your thoughts.
We got We got three lawyers on the panel. Let's we we should get three opinions. I agree. At the same time, I'm thinking if this contractor is out of business, what type of uh ramifications can we get from this specific contractor? But would
that be up to us from, you know, we're we're not the fixers that But the form of the contract, is there a successor and a sign? There's a whole lot out there. We just don't know. Yes. Like a true defense lawyer. Which makes me think as a question for staff, let let's say for this gentleman
and and the prior gentleman who was in a similar situation, if we deny the application, how much time has to pass before they reapply? They can apply every month. Okay. So, so it means that that you know perhaps if you hit a wall, if your lawyer hits a
wall, you don't have because there's there's some things you have to wait a we a year for to come back. There are there are so once a month. That that's good. All right. That's good enough. All right. What's what what's your pleasure, gentlemen? Move to Mr. Chair. What's that? Move to deny. We have a motion to deny from Mr.
Levant. Is there a second? Second. Second from Mr. Beley. All those in favor of the motion to deny say I. I. Those opposed I. We have opposition from the judge. Uh
so the motion was denied. You can appeal this to the county commission if you want. Staff can help with that. Uh you can try other avenues and come back to us in a month or following months. We're no I'm sorry. We're we're done. We're moving on to the next one.
Number 11. Item number 11 is a request for a westside yard setback variance from 10 feet to 7 and 12 ft to enclose an existing carport in the R1A single family dwelling district in the Jensen
subdivision located at uh 6024 Lineal Beach Drive. The carport to go to garage conversion is 441 square feet. encroaches 2 1/2 ft into the required sideyard setback. The applicant applied for a building permit, building permit
number 25-2495, and at that time it was determined that a sideyard setback variance was needed. There have not been any prior variances for the subject property and this concludes my presentation. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, questions for staff.
All right. Is the applicant here? Is there anything you'd like to add, sir? Yes, sir. Please do. Come on. Just share with us your name and address real quick. Ken Lucas, 6024 Lineal Beach Drive. Yes, sir. I have a letter of support from my neighbor directly to the west um in
support of the variance. Excellent. Gentlemen, any questions? That was easy. Anything else you'd like to add? No, sir. All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is There anyone in the audience who'd like
to speak in support? Anyone who'd like to speak in opposition? Seeing none, your pleasure, gentlemen. Move to approve. Motion to approve for Mr. Beley. Is there a second? Seconded. Second from Mr. Evans. All those in
favor? I opposed. All right. Enjoy. Best of luck with a young coming on. Oh, here. All right. Number 12. Item number 12 is a request for a north rear yard setback variance from 30 feet to 3 and 1/2 ft into a an east sideyard setback
variance from 10 ft to 7 1/2 ft for a shed in the R1A single family dwelling district located at 1195 Wimmore Road. The proposed variance request is located on parcel [Music] 23-212930090-000000 in unincorporated
Simol County and is owned by St. Anthony cooptic or Orthodox Church Inc. The church parking and other associated buildings are located on an adjacent parcel in the city of Maitland. The city of Matland denied the church's request
to annex parcel 9 into the city of Maitland. Due to the county boundary going through the church's property, thus creating two separate parcels and due to the complexity of the situation, Semino County staff recommended that the
church submit a small site plan. Um, small site plan, a small site plan application. Uh once the small site plan was submitted uh project number 24-060075 and reviewed, it was determined that setback variances would
be required prior to site plan approval. The proposed shed will be 390 square ft and will encroach 23 1/2 ft into the required north rear yard setback and 2 and 1/2 ft into the required east sideyard setback. The shed
will be for storage of domestic items related to the church and there have not been any prior variances for the subject property. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, any questions for staff? Yeah, I've I've got one.
Um perhaps I I missed it. Did it almost appears like this will be seen like from the road in traffic? Like not right away, but like am I just kind of miss seeing the overhead? You you will see it. Um but that is the Weimmore
road is the ramp, right? And then I4 is directly behind it. Um and because the county boundary cuts it off, that's the only location that they have to place a storage structure. They can't put it uh in the parking lot. Sure.
Because it would take up parking. And then I believe you you can't tell by these pictures, but in the Google uh map view, the property, it looks like a uh the
elevation is so much lower, like it's a swale or it's retention. Um, so it wouldn't be able to go into that far back corner as well, but I mean we can ask the applicant, but yes, you would be able to see it
from Wear Road. Their access would have to be through the church property. It is basically the church property. It's just in Simol County. Mland doesn't want to annex it. Okay. All right. Any other questions for Seth? Is the applicant here? I am. Oh,
we do want to hear from you. Could you share with us your name and address please sir? Rammy Sandra 370 South Triple Lake Drive. Um I am one of the board members of St. Anthony Coptic Corsac Church. Uh this is a very unique
and a bizarre situation that we're in. Uh we have tried since the beginning of construction. This is a new church that was finished five years ago during the planning phases. We tried to take advantage of that parcel land that's
that was donated to to the church but through politics and stuff it wasn't. So they just left it. And now we find ourselves in a very dire need that we need storage. Our church is a very active church uh and is growing and we just have a lot of um plays and
activities and stuff that we need to be able to store it without causing havoc inside the church. So that is the only place that we can locate a storage and the church is very conscious also of the look of it. Uh we we it's a beautiful church. We drove by it. So it's that's
the last thing we want to do is put something up that's going to be a eyesore. So the shed that's being installed or or decided on has similar uh texture, finishes, colors to match or complement the the church um building
structure. And I just want to clarify something about the visibility of it. You know, if you are in Wymore, it is you are in a rampage, so you can't really see it. There's just no way you can see it. It's really only in the I4. And if you're driving 60 75 miles an
hour, it's difficult for you to uh to see it. But that's Gentlemen, questions for the applicant. First of all, if you're driving at 75, you're driving too fast. Let's go down and look at that pretty church. The shed and the shed. It
does. You're going to put a dome on the shed, too. And uh No, thank you, sir. Is the shed right up against the property? No, we it's going to be set back 10 I think it's 10 ft. That was our setback from there. We actually have to create a a swell behind the shed so that the
water uh drains into it. So, I mean, this had to go through a site plan review and I got comments for it and then it has to go to building review. It's it's a pretty involved the first step. Huh? Mr. First step. Yes. Yeah. Gota. Thank you, sir. Uh, anyone here to
speak in support of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition? Seeing none. Your pleasure, gentlemen. Second. Motion approved from the judge. We have a second from Mr. Beley. All those in favor? I opposed.
Enjoy. And I do think your church is lovely, by the I drive by it all the time. Drive by anytime. All right. Number 13. Item number 13 is a request for a front yard setback variance from 100 ft to 16 ft for a storage building
in the A5 rural district located at 835 Old Lake Harney Road. The existing storage building is 1,800 square ft and encroaches 34 ft into the required front yard setback. The storage building is used for personal use only. A building
code violation BV24-265 was issued for the storage building. The applicant has applied for a building permit. Permit number 24-16017. Once the permit is issued, the applicant will be required to complete
all required inspections. There have not been any prior variances for the subject property. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, questions for staff. Is the applicant here? Please sir, come on down.
And if you'd share with us your your name and address, please. Good evening, everybody. This is Adam Nelson. I live at Lake Carney, uh, 3,800 Lake Carney Circle in Geneva. I'm the general contractor for Mr. Nordine.
Gotcha. Do you know kind of how this your your your take of the story of this is? Well, I'm I'm a local contractor in the area. A lot of people call me to get them out of binds. And uh what happened here is uh Paul uh Junior, he he houses
his uh takes care of his dad. Now, this is his dad's old property. So, once the code violation came in, he's like, "Dad, what's this?" His dad's 90 years old. He don't remember. But, uh this was built before uh Junior had moved onto the property. And uh now that we have this
issue, he wants to get it resolved. So we, you know, pulled the building permit. And uh looking at this a couple different ways on the way this property and this home is uh positioned on it makes it kind of a um a controversy because where's the where's the the
address is north. So it would be the building would be behind the home. But however this was uh permitted initially the home is the reason why we're here for the variance. Gotcha. Thank you sir. Uh gentlemen questions for the applicant or for his
contractor. Thank you sir. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in support of this? Seeing none. Anyone in the audience to speak in opposition? Seeing none. Gentlemen, your
thoughts? I move to approve. We have a motion to approve from Mr. Beley. Is there a second? Second. Second from the judge. All those in favor? I those opposed. All right. It passes. Best of luck, sir. All right. And we've got number 14 was
withdrawn. So, we go on to 15. Thank you. Mary Robinson uh with development services. Um, this is a variance request for 2125 Lynden Road. It's a request for a front yard setback variance from 25 ft to 0 feet for a
fence in the R1A single family uh dwelling zoning district. The um subject property is on a corner lot and as such is considered to have two front yards. The front of the house faces Lynen
Road. The property line adjacent to null street is the side location where the variance is being sought. Null street is a plat rightway but is not an open road. The privacy fence is 6t high
in a vinyl uh material. The fence is on the property line. Therefore, like I said, the zero foot setback request. There is a code enforcement violation. 25-10 was issued for the fence construction without a fence permit resulting in the ne necessity of this
variance. The property owner did submit a fence permit application 251356 and approvals pending on the outcome of this hearing. Thank you ma'am. Gentleman question I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sorry. Sorry. Turn the
page. Traffic engineering has looked at this request and does not object. There are no prior variances for the subject property, but there were two variances in the neighborhood for a fence height at 2153 Lynen Road and a setback
variance was approved for 1918 Lynen Road. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, questions for staff. Seeing none, is the applicant here? Yes, ma'am. Anything you'd like to add? Please just come down and give us
your name and address for the record. Molly Vega 21 um 25 London Road. Uh we did replace the fence that was there previously when we purchased the property four years ago and it was permitted and approved at that same place. We put it up in the same place.
And then as I said, it's like you can see from the pictures I had submitted, it's not really a road. It dead ends at the side driveway. And so and then it has a fence also on that side of the street. That is correct. There was a permit that was approved but it was issued an error.
So when they came back to apply for this new uh fence permit um the variance was required was required. Gotcha. It should have been required back in 21. Gentlemen questions for the applicant.
Seeing none. Uh thank you ma'am. Thank you. Anyone in the audience to speak in support of this matter? Seeing none. Anyone in the audience to speak in opposition? Seeing none, gentlemen. I move to approve. We have a motion to
approve for Mr. Beley. Is there a second? Seconded. Second from Mr. Evans. All those in favor? I opposed. All right. Enjoy fence. Number 16. Yes. Thank you. Mary Robinson with planning and development. This is a
request for a sideyard each sideyard setback variance from 10 feet to 8 feet and 2/10 inches for an addition and to correct the non-conforming sideyard setback for the existing home at 116
Lamplider Road. It's located in R1A single family zoning district and the subject property is located in the Apple Valley subdivision. The like I said the variance is to accommodate a 600 square f foot addition
of a bedroom and a bathroom and to correct the non-conforming setback for the existing home. There have no been no prior variances for the subject property and this concludes my presentation. Thank you ma'am. Gentlemen
questions for staff. Is the applicant here? Yes sir. anything you'd like to add to what staff had shared. Okay. And if you'd please share just your name and name and address for the record, please. Uh yes, my name is uh Matthew
Opel. I'm with Extreme Roofing and Construction. We're at 147 Parliament Loop in uh Lake Mary, and uh Robert Griffith is our customer. Um, this home was built on that setback or well I guess in non-compliance of the setback
uh because I guess it's set at 10 ft. It's at 8.2. He hired us to do an addition keeping the same, you know, line of the home moving back to the back. And when we were doing our research to work on getting the permit and everything together, we had realized this. So that's why we're here is just
to keep his house in line so it doesn't jog in a foot and a half. So, questions for the uh contractor for the applicant. Gentlemen, it's nice to have a contractor in here that's right. Just saying. Good people do exist.
That's right. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Gotcha. Anyone in the audience to speak in support of this application? Is there anyone in the audience to speak in opposition? Seeing none. Your pleasure, gentlemen. Have a motion to approve from
the judge. Is there a second? Second. Second for Mr. Mr. Lavant. Second. All those in favor? I opposed. All right. Thank you, gentlemen. 17. And thank you, Mary Robinson again with planning and development. This is a
request for rear yard setback variance from 30 ft to 20 ft for a single family residence in the R1 single family zoning district at the location of 2225 McCarthy Avenue. The subject property is located in the Lockhart
subdivision and as I stated zone R1. The proposed single family resident is 1,190 square ft. The building permit was submitted in November of 11th of 2024 BP24-16390.
The site plan application was submitted, I mean, I'm sorry, was approved with the R1 setbacks being met and the 30-foot brewyard setback being met. When the applicant went to apply for his septic permit, the contractor informed him that
the septic would have to be located in the front yard due to a well being located in the rear yard. And they I'm sorry, what? and they could not meet the separation requirements. So, the site plan was revised which uh generated the need for
the 10-ft setback in the rear. There haven't been any other variances for the subject property and this concludes my presentation. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, questions for staff here. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir.
Anything you want to add to what staff had said? Come on down. Just please share with us your name and address for the record. My name is Lionel Sanford. Address is 607 Hickor Avenue. Yes, sir.
Um I am here just for what she said. Um, we found out that it's a well in the in for the other property that would be too close to our septic tank. So, we have to move our septic tank to the front yard.
So, we're just asking for a variance to push the house back another 10T so we can put the septic tank in in the front yard. Gotcha. Gentlemen, questions. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you.
Anyone here to speak in support of the application? Anyone here to speak in opposition? All right. What do you think? Move to approve. Move to approve. Mr. Beagley. Is there second? Second. Mr. Evans. All
those in favor? I opposed. All right. Enjoy, gentlemen. You don't want to combine the two. That's it. You don't want to combine the two. Well, and septic. Those are words you live by. Absolutely. Uh number 13, please. Yeah, thank you.
Mary Robinson again for planning and development. This is a request for a rear yard setback variance from 30 ft to allow to 15 ft for an accessory structure. And number two, a square footage variance to
allow the accessory structure to exceed 50% of the living area of the principal dwelling. in the R1A single family zoning district. The location is 7400 Betty Street. This subject property is located
in the Renwood third edition subdivision. The accessory structure proposed is 1560 square ft. It's 39 ft x 40 ft. Two letters of support have been received from Mr. William
Wilbanks and William Betty Castilia Castilio and they're located 7406 Betty Street. The proposed accessory structure like I said is 1560 ft. The principal living area is 1534 square ft and the
total area of the principal structure is 291 square ft. This concludes my presentation. M. Robinson, is that just not that it's a big deal, but is that just a drainage canal behind their place on the opposite side of Betty Street? It appears so.
Gotcha. All right, gentlemen. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Anything you like to add, sir? I don't know if you have questions or we'll approve it. You all have questions? All right. You want to approve it? You had your bets. I understand. Yes, sir. Indeed. All right.
Thank you, sir. Anyone here to speak in support of the applicant? Anyone here to speak in opposition? All right. What do you all think? Move to approve. Move to approve from Mr. Beley. Second from the judge. All those in favor? I opposed. All
right. Enjoy. Um 14. Mary Robinson again, planning. Sorry. I'm sorry. What? I No, I just correcting myself. I could read my own handwriting. Sorry. Please. Right. This is a request for a rear yard setback
variance from 20 ft to 10 ft for a screen enclosure in the plan development zoning district at 1398 Swinton Court. The subject property is located in the estuary at St. John's subdivision and that is also the name of the plan
development zoning classification. The variance is being sought to construct a 30x32 960q ft screen enclosure. There was a building permit application submitted which is pending approval if the variance is approved. A
letter of support has been received from a re resident that resides at 1386 Swinton Court and there have not been any prior variances for this subject property, but there were two year rear yard variances that were approved on Swinton Court for
a screen enclosure and the other was for a privacy fence. That concludes my presentation. Thank you, ma'am. Gentlemen, questions for staff. Seeing none. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Anything you'd like to add?
I mean I mean please feel free if you want to share anything. I'm sorry. If you we're going to drag you up here and just real quick your name and address please. Hi, my name is Sara Pachori and I'm 1398 Senton Court
Sanford Florida and so I need the 10 foot variance instead of 20 and same my neighbor did already 1386 that I already put the supporting letter so that I request you to please provide the approval. Gotcha. Gentlemen, questions
for the applicant. Right. Thank you sir. I appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone here to speak in support of the matter? Seeing none, anyone here to speak in opposition? Seeing none, it's the board's pleasure. Motion to approve, chair. All right, we
got a motion to approve from Mr. Evans. Is there a second? Second. Second for Mr. Beley. All those in favor? Opposed. All right. On everything, so somebody else's turn. Number 20. And then as a reminder, we have two that were
continued. Uh number 20, please. Yeah, thank you. Mary Robinson again, planning and development. This is a request for a square footage area variance to allow an accessory structure to exceed 50% of the living area of the principal building in
the A1 zoning classification. The location is 1850 Lake Mills Road. The subject property, as I said, is zoned A1. The proposed structure is a 60 by 120
um square foot accessory structure and that is one 7,200 square 200 square ft. The structure will be used to store vehicles such as a car, boat and RVs. So, this request um state the section of
the code states that accessory buildings shall not exceed the principal building in terms of mass, size, and height unless they're located in A1 and used for agricultural purposes, which this structure is not proposed to be used for that. The principal building living area
is 3,6633 square feet and 50% of that would be 1,831.5 square ft. There have not been any prior variances for the subject property. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you, ma'am.
Gentlemen, questions for staff. Seeing none, is the applicant here? Anything y'all like to add? I thought we've already seen him once. No, I'm just kidding. Yeah, we're gonna judge you based on your prior performance. So,
yes, sir. Just just just to follow the rules and have share your name and address again, please. Uh yeah, my name is Matthew Pel with Extreme Roofing and Construction, and our address is 147 Parlament Loop in Lake Mary. Um, so this uh applicant is looking to um or our
customer is looking to build this structure to house his RVs and uh things that have been kept outside uh for his family. Um there's a lot of other structures on the same road on Lake Mills that have the same type of structure that's already constructed. Uh I attached some
photos in the uh application for you guys' review. Um just wants to use it for storage. Go on. You were saying um that that was basically it. Okay. Gentlemen, questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you. See you kind of advertising for your
business when you follow the rules. Goodness. Uh is there anyone here to speak in support of this matter? Anyone here to speak in opposition? It's the board's pleasure. Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve. Judge got cut. I I have my head
down. Who who moved to approve? Mr. Leavant. And who seconded? Who's on first? Seconded. All those. All right. All those in favor? I opposed. All right. Enjoy. We're Good
luck on the project. All right. Returning back to number one. Is that person here? Wait. Yeah. We're all scrolling away like that here. That's a technical term. I recognize that.
Angie's gone high-tech with the noise making. 198. Wait, which one was continued? What? Number one. First one was number one. 1982. Longwood Lake. Longwood Lake Mary Road. That's mine. That's yours. Oh, hey. Welcome, counselor. Do we need
to read this into the record again? No, they weren't here, so we didn't do it, did we? That's right. It's been such a long night. Um, all right. Number one. Here we go. No, we're not ready yet. Sorry. I'm sure there's these long agenda nights. So, the question is,
Angie, are we ready? Sorry. Continue. No, no, no. It's Hey, we're all in this together. All right. Number one. Let's see. Here we go. Good evening. For the record, Megan Sorski, project coordinator for planning. This
variance request is for 1982 Longwood Lake Mary Road which is in the R1 zoning district and within within the platted subdivision of Longwood Park. The applicant is seeking one, a front yard setback variance from the required 25 ft to 24.6 ft and two, a southside street
setback variance from the required 25 ft to 0 feet for a 6ft tall privacy fence. The subject property is a corner lot and as such is considered to have two front yards for setback purposes. The front of the house faces Longwood Lake Mary Road. The fence is subject to code enforcement
violation CV23299. The fence is 19 ft from the edge of pavement along Ruth Boulevard and traffic engineering has no objection to the placement of the existing fence. The fence will be required to meet all requirements at the time of permitting, including an estopple letter for any
easements. The subject property has had no prior variances. That concludes my presentation. I am available for any additional questions. Thank you, ma'am. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, ma'am, anything you'd like to share with us or you're
good. You all have questions for the applicant? That was easy. Uh, anyone here? For those at home on TV, there is no one here. Anyone in the audience to speak in support of this matter? Seeing none, anyone to speak in opposition?
Seeing none. It's the board's pleasure. Move to approve. Motion to approve for Mr. Beigley. Who's the second? Second. Second from Mr. Levant. All those in favor? I opposed. All right. To your fence. And then we've got number eight. While
we all take our time and not rush anybody. Check with Angie first. I tell you what, I'm not going to get my wrist. I can't see with the computer part. Okay. Item eight. Again,
is a request for a fence height variance from 6 and 1/2 ft to 8 ft in the R1A single family dwelling district in the estates of Aloma Woods phase 2 subdivision located at 5729 Oak Lake Trail. The existing 90 foot linear 90 ft
of linear feet whatever of 8 foot you know what I mean. I'm just kidding. 8 foot tall privacy fence is 1 and 1/2 ft over the maximum allowable height. The estates at Aloma Woods Homeowners Association approved the privacy fence and one letter of support
was submitted from the neighbors directly behind the where the property uh variance is being sought. Let's see. There have not been any prior variances for the subject property. And this concludes my
presentation. Was that the applicant who walked out or? No. No, that was a lady that was here for Don Court. I thought they were going to keep pulling back in because they were the applicant. Well, looks like the applicant's not here. Are we sure it's not the deputy? So, after all these
years, deputy, you got one fine. Um, there I also wanted to note that there was an 8 foot variance for the same thing. same request, rear yard 8t um located down the street that was approved as well. So So for the record,
assistant county attorney Robin Robbie McHugh. So our code says the applicant and his or her representative, agent, lawyer may appear at the hearing. So there's there's the may. It's not a shall or a must. Um that
being said, this is a matter of first impression for me. I I don't really know how you all have handled this in the past. Um I think from a just a conservative approach, uh I would
recommend moving it to a continuing it to a date certain. I know it's not really a controversial item. Um but, uh that's that's just my two cents on this. you you you may make a motion at your discretion.
There there is some latitude in the code, but um I think that's the safest approach. That's if you want to discuss it. I Yeah. And thank you. I appreciate you sharing that. And and you know, gentlemen, if you disagree, you disagree, and that's fair. My my thinking is Yeah. I think this is better
served by letting the applicant share whatever they want to share. I I would think continuing to a date certain would be the way to do it, but whatever y'all think. I agree. Yeah. I agree. I have a motion to continue to a date certain. Judge, would you recommend saying that date certain being whatever the date of
our next meeting is? Yes, sir. May 19th. Thank you. May 19th. Uh, is there a second? I would second that motion. Passes by acclamation. Thank you, gentlemen. Last thing, continuing uh considering the minutes, the chair will entertain a motion to approve the minutes. approve our motion to approve.
Sorry. Again by acclamation. Thank you so much. Anything else you all want to share? We are adjourned. Thank you so much.
[Music]
Hey. Hey. Hey.