P Beach. If we could all please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Roll call, please. Member Schmidt >> here. >> Member Core >> here. >> Vice Chair Garshaw >> here. Member Small >> here. >> Chair Chase here. >> We have a quorum. >> We'll start our meeting with the approval for of the agenda.
>> Is there any are there any changes to the agenda today? >> No, Madam Chair. No changes. >> Motion to approve the January 28th agenda. >> So moved. >> Roll second. Roll call, please. >> Member Core. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw.
>> Yes. Yes. Member Small, >> yes. >> Member Schmidt, >> yes. >> Chair Chase, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> At this time, we have the opportunity take to take audience comments. Um, if there's a case or an issue that you'd like to address the board with that's not on today's agenda. If you'd like to speak on an item on today's agenda,
there are yellow cards in the back of the room that you can fill out and provide to the clerk. But if anybody would like to share something with the board today outside of the scope of the agenda, we're happy to hear from you. Hearing none, we'll move on to approval of the minutes from last month's meeting. Did everybody have a chance to review? Any
questions or comments? >> Yep. >> Do we have a motion? >> I approve. We I move that we approve the minutes. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Garshaw. >> Yes. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Member Core. >> Yes.
>> Chair Chase. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. We have three cases for today's meeting. Before we move into discussing the first case, um our attorney would like to remind everybody about the nature of the quasi judicial hearing that we're here today for. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um yes, today on
your agenda, you have three items. They are all variances. Two are unnecessary and due hardship cases. The remaining case is a practical difficulty uh variance case. So under Florida law, uh, variances have been considered quasi
judicial in nature. And what this requires is that your hearing today comply with some procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in your land development code. So these quasi judicial proceedings, they will be less formal than a proceeding before circuit court, but
they will be more formal than the remainder of your meeting, and they must follow basic standards of due process that requires everyone having uh certain notices, the application of the correct standards and criteria, and that your
decisions be made on competent substantial evidence that's presented to you today, either in written documents in your agenda packet or through oral testimony. Your responsibility today as members of the board of adjustment is to
evaluate the testimony and the documents and for each item each of the three variances and then draw a conclusion regarding whether the criteria in your land development code uh regarding variances has been satisfied. So
speculation, I think, or an opinion that is not based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by you in evaluating whether or not a criteria has been satisfied. Any testimony by professionals who are qualified as
experts in a particular area has been considered competent evidence by Florida courts as well as testimony by neighbors and residents who have fact-based information such as minutes, surveys, engineering reports, or if their
testimony is based on their personal uh knowledge that they have. Your decision uh is final. If your decision if uh a decision of approval is not obtained, uh it is there is an opportunity to
present an alternative um uh motion for approval uh with perhaps different u conditions. If you choose to deny uh an application or request for a variance, the reason for the variance
denial must be stated in your motion. Um and generally it would be because of the lack of evidence to support one of the criteria that is required by your code. In the event that there is a denial, your code provides that um the same
application for a variance cannot be granted or cannot be submitted for six months. So, those of you who are in the audience, um, having heard my comments, please keep them in mind. When you come forward to provide any oral testimony,
state your name clearly for the record and whether or not you've been sworn in and your qualifications or your interest in the matter. So, for purposes of efficiency, before we begin your action items today, I'd like to go ahead and
and address a few items for the record. First of all, I need to ask whether or not the three variances have been properly noticed. And I would ask staff and the town or the city clerk. I think I'm hearing yes. Okay. Um, also
I want to ask if any members of the board of adjustment have a conflict of interest under Florida law that would prohibit you from voting on any of the three variances today. >> No. >> No. >> Okay. So, we have a quorum present. Um, at this time it would be efficient
to go ahead and ask anyone who's in the audience to go ahead and stand and uh allow the city clerk to administer the oath so that your testimony can be um entered into the record for the various variance items.
Anyone who will be speaking to the board or making a presentation needs to be sworn in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the information or factual representation that you are about to give or present to the board is truthful? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. As I mentioned in my comments, um individuals who um have been sworn in as experts uh based on their experience and their and other qualifications has been considered to be competent substantial evidence. I
believe before the board of adjustment, the city staff has already been determined to be experts in the area of land use in the city of St. Pete Beach. At this time, if there's anyone in the audience that would like their testimony
to be considered as that of an expert, um it would be a very helpful to go ahead and have you rise and um let the board of adjustment consider your qualifications and your um ability to testify as an expert.
I do not see anyone. Okay. So, moving on. Um, madame chair, if you would like to go ahead and read the first item, the first variance and we and then followed with um exparte disclosures. >> Our first case for this afternoon is
case number 2514272 passway. >> Can we um review any exparte for the site visit? >> Yep. Same uh site visit and I watched yesterday's historical board presentation. did that as well.
>> Site visit and I spoke to somebody whose property abuts the um 702. >> I had a site visit and I encountered Brandon Techberug, the owner. Uh he showed me the um alleyway in the back,
>> all this stuff. >> Um I also received a email from Protect St. Beach which was also addressing this topic. >> We all got that. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. There have been um a number of emails and letters that
have been provided regarding this item. Um I'm going to defer to uh Kristen to um identify those for the record and I believe that everyone has received a copy of those and that they have been added to the agenda. Madam Chair, if I
may, we have received um since agenda posting 53 total emails or letters. um I have not been able to calculate in support or against. Um at this time, if you would give me just a few moments with a staff presentation, I can calculate that out. I will note that not
all of them were specifically to the variance request. Some may have broadened their horizons on whether the development of the property was in question. Um, so I've kind of tried to weed those out a little bit for you, but I can have a better understanding, but I
have provided every piece of information staff has received. >> Thank you very much, Kristen. Um, and I think that's important just to ground everybody on the nature of this variance, which is to allow the retention and expansion of a driveway access from passway following the redevelopment of 702 Pasway. So that's
the matter that we're discussing today. >> Thank you. Chair Brandon Barry, planner with the city of St. Pete Beach. If we could get the PowerPoint pulled up. So, the request has already been described. Um, the applicant agent is Brandon Tekkenberg of 702 Pagway LLC. He
is present today to support this case. This is an unnecessary and undue hardship variance case and the case number is 25142. Here's an aerial of the property. It is located between 7th and 8th Avenue along Pass Way.
The property has a zoning of CRDA. That is a community redevelopment district, 8th Avenue. It has a future land use designation of special planning area 2. This is a moderate to highintensity mixeduse zoning district. It allows for standalone commercial office. It allows
for mixeduse residential with a commercial component as well as standalone lodging uses. The applicant is requesting variance to land development code section 40.112 which prohibits driveway access from the main thoroughfare following redevelopment. There is an existing
driveway access of approximately 16 ft in width that connects from the private portion of the property to pass way along the frontage. The applicant is seeking to both retain the driveway access following redevelopment that requires variance. They're also seeking an expansion to approximately 20 feet in
width. That is measured at the property line of that driveway again following redevelopment. You can see here in existing conditions uh this is a snippet of the survey. You can see the subject curb cut at the bottom right of the screen. The reason
why this variance is required is because the property abuts an alleyway that terminates at a point at the rear of the property. It is a 10-ft alleyway per the plaid. Reviewing the survey conditions, there's approximately 9 ft of usable
width um for a vehicle in that alleyway. And you can see that on the top left side of the screen. Uh you can see here request under a site plan review. This is something we discussed with the applicant. This is a potential development of the property. It is currently under review. Because
this pertains to the same matter, we did bring this forward. This this is the expansion part of the request. The existing drive I I mentioned here 17 feet. It's approximately 16 and a half feet uh measured on the most recent survey. The proposed drive is is approximately 20 feet in width. Again,
that is measured at the property line. There is an apron flare that extends further north than um than the width of the driveway. You can see here an aerial of the property showing the remaining public alleyways that fan out from the alleyway
that connects up with the rear of this property. There are two connections, one of which is obtained through a property, one of which is an actual platted alleyway. That's the one further on to the west. And both of them access 8th Avenue unencumbered. Staff reviewed this request with the
applicant at the January 12th technical review committee. We asked several questions. Whether the applicant would be willing to forfeit any on street parking passes to accommodate a pending use of the property. Um, that was addressed through conditions, which I'll cover in a moment. whether any consideration to be given to establishing easement through the
adjacent property of the street which would have required alteration of this request that is not requested at this time. Uh it were that to be established in the future based on the current requirements of the land development code, it would require amendment to this request. And the third item was whether there was a willingness to install a
landscaping buffer along the southern side of the driveway to screen the drive aisle. That is also addressed through conditions. This item was also brought to the historic preservation board yesterday at a special meeting for recommendation. The board found the request did not meet
hardship variance criteria number two or number six, but otherwise found that the request to retain the driveway apron was sufficient to recommend approval for retention with conditions. There are five. I will go into detail on those in just a moment. A comparison with
proposed staff conditions can be found at the end of this presentation. Here's some photographs of the site showing the signposting, showing the front of the site looking toward the alleyway.
A view of the existing curb cut that is sought for retention and it would be expanded toward uh the photo taker. Uh this is showing a rear garage apartment as well as a util utility building at the rear of the property.
This is showing the adjacency of the existing building to the neighbor to the south, 700 Paso Way. This building um is currently under uh proposal for demolition under a pending site plan.
This is looking from that garage out toward the alleyway. This is taken looking to the west. This is another photo from the alleyway toward the garage. and another shot of the front edge
looking toward the site. Staff um wanted to make a few comments regarding this case. The resoning of the subject property to CRDA was undertaken voluntarily by a former owner when the district required alleyway access. This requirement to which the variance
is sought was in place in 2018 when the resoning was undertaken and was approved. that provides only limited support for criteria number two of the hardship variance criteria. However, uh staff does find that there are special conditions that apply to this land that do not apply to other properties in the
same zoning district. Staff finds use of the alleyway for primary ingress and egress likely provides an unsafe condition that is made pursuant to criteria number eight of the hardship variance criteria. And it's also due to the somewhat unique lack of alleyway circulation. The block between 8th and
9th Avenue does have circulation. It does have an alleyway that is only 10 feet wide. Uh so it doesn't have a passable width within that west to east alleyway, but it does at least provide for circulation. The alleyway that abuts this property terminates into the rear of the property. So there is not that
circulation through a public alleyway thorough affair. Additionally, if a pending lodging facility redevelopment is undertaking, allowing a new low turnover use to account for significant amounts of on street parking is contrary to what we've determined to be the district purpose and intent which
supports preservation of the existing high turnover mixeduse development pattern that those are criteria seven and eight of the unnecessary and undue hardship variance criteria. The district purpose and intent places a lot of emphasis in the CRDA on retention and
support for the existing mixeduse development pattern in the businesses and the uses that currently exist along an adjacent 8th Avenue within the zoning district. Those are generally high turnover uses commercial restaurant retail. A lodging facility which is currently proposed for the redevelopment
of the property is a much lower turnover use. um retaining those on street parking, moving the parking onto the subject property through a safe and accessible driveway access from passer way is something that staff finds is in compliance and and in support of the
criteria of the hardship variance. So, as I mentioned before, the historic preservation board provided their input on this project yesterday. I will go through the staff conditions that were proposed with the staff report and speak to whether the historic preservation board um requested any modification to
those criteria. Condition one is that addition of property to the subject zoning lot that would change the relationship of this property relative to the surrounding thorough affairs or use of the property for other than the pending request shall make with the request null and void. There had been an initial leadin sentence that provided
staff justification for the subject request. The historic preservation board had requested that that be removed for the recommendation, but they did agree with the null and void requirement that is in the staff column. There had been a condition recommended
in the staff report for right turn only signage at the egress to the property should this driveway be retained. That would be installed facing Passil Way. Again, egress from the driveway toward Passil Way. Staff did speak with the applicant in advance of this hearing. We
do support a recommended request to amend this that if if this is supported by a traffic and or safety analysis at the time of site plan issuance, staff would support that requirement should it be required at site plan issuance for whatever development ultimately takes
place on this subject property. The historic preservation board had reviewed this yesterday. They had requested to keep this as written without the underlined text. I will say that the underlined text in the staff column was a recent addition that followed the historic preservation board meeting. So they would not have been evaluating what
was underlined. Staff had requested a three- foot wide landscaping buffer fence or wall with a minimum height of 5t along the southern side of the property abuing the neighbor at 702 sorry 700 Pasco Way that shall be maintained or installed along the south
side of the driveway. Historic Preservation Board had requested that that be kept as written. Staff had recommended based on the existing and the proposed conditions at the frontage of the site that would be caused by the retention of this driveway that the owner shall forfeit two on street hang
tags upon redevelopment of the property to account for the inability of the city to establish two spaces at the property frontage following redevelopment. Should this driveway be retained? The Historic Preservation Board had requested that the owner forfeit all on street hang tags upon redevelopment of the property.
That's going to vary depending on what the ultimate use of this property entails. However, based on the current proposal that staff has on file for a site plan for a 17 unit lodging development, there would be approximately up to 25 hang tags allowed for this development.
There had been no staff condition related to the fifth condition that the historic preservation board had requested, which is that architectural rendering shall be provided for design review of future development for review by the historic preservation board prior
to site plan approval. That was the one new added condition that did not just represent a modification of a proposed staff condition. I did want to make a note about the subject case. There is not currently any action on the property that requires the
driveway to be removed. This is a requirement of redevelopment. The property is not currently undertaking redevelopment. There has not been an issued site plan. There's no active work to develop a new use on the property. There is a site plan for a lodging development that is pending. Section
40.11 requires use of the alleyway and elimination of the driveway upon redevelopment. So, I wanted to point out that if this request is denied, the driveway may remain in its current configuration until redevelopment is undertaken. If the request is approved with conditions, the conditions become
effective upon redevelopment. They would need to be reflected on the site plan prior to issuance and they would need to be provided on site prior to certificate of occupancy for the primary building that is being redeveloped. We did make a few requests for applicant testimony. The applicant did speak to
all of these items at the technical review committee when their case was reviewed. Um they may wish to provide additional testimony to this today. We are not as staff asking for any additional information from the applicant. But these were the items that we had requested in the staff report and
which they responded to at the technical review committee. Whether they would be willing to make any vol voluntary forfeite of on street parking passes associated with any kind of forthcoming redevelopment. the ability to shift the existing or new curb cut north to accommodate a recommended landscaping
buffer along the southern property line, whether the request to retain the existing driveway only 16 ft or whether the request is to allow the design permitted under the corresponding site plan that is currently under review. As I mentioned, that's approximately 20 ft. Although there is no code minimum when
parking is not adjacent, I did want to point out that there is a staff concern with a very narrow lane width related to ingress and egress for the proposed current development. Um staff is of the opinion that 20 ft would be preferable for ingress and egress at the property
line. We are only looking at the depth at the property line. it can fan out from that distance, but a 16 to 17 foot width provides very limited um lane widths for vehicles entering and exiting the property should future development
be undertaken. So there are multiple motion options to point out to the board. Most of these are boilerplate that you see with any case. The first would be to approve the variance case for 702 passway with no conditions. We've presented two different sets of conditions. the
conditions that were drafted by staff with the staff report as amended at this hearing or those that are proposed by the historic preservation board. Approval of the variance case with other conditions whether some or all plus additional of the v um of the variance
conditions that were recommended by staff or the historic preservation board. You can deny the case or you can continue the case to a future date pending submittal of additional requested information. We do have the applicant agent present. I'm happy to take any questions.
>> Questions for Brandon? >> The the alleyway in the back um that that is a city considered a city road. >> It is correct. >> Have utility rideways along it.
>> Get back to the survey. I don't believe there are any platted easements at the rear of the adjacent properties that I am aware of that would make it wider than 15 sorry 10 ft at any point. That 10 ft is a a platted easement. um that's that's maintained as
a public thorough affair, but I don't believe there's any easements that would allow for widening of that or any recorded utility easements at least in the at least on the plaid >> because what I was trying to determine if there were any encroachments with some of the structures that go along the
alleyway because it seems sort of irregular. >> Based on the survey, um I believe we measured approximately 9 ft and that that's only at specific points where there are poles and other encumbrances. So, it's it's a 9 ft in usable width at
the narrowest point. >> Brandon, on the front, um, is there are there utility conflicts on the expansion of this driveway? Based on what you were showing, it appeared to be And from my drive by,
there was lighted poles there. A light pole there. >> Mhm. Um, you just pass well this photo. >> Yes. And we we would address that under any future redevelopment plan, either
relocation or removal of that pole. That is something we would have to coordinate with with Duke Energy and our public services department. >> At the expense of the developer. >> It's typically at the expense of the developer. Yes. >> Um, Brandon, understanding the redevelopment is, you know, pending
speculative at this point. in general in pass a develop um a lot of this size what is required to go to the historic preservation board for review or can you just remind us of what that process generally would look like regardless of this specific project?
>> So in the pasil overlay district the CRD8th Avenue is not part of the overlay. New development typically moves forward to the historic preservation board for design review. That is an actual action that the historic preservation board undertakes. They do um make recommendations, but they are
able to um request resubmitt based on staff comments or finding that the design doesn't comply with the ordinance and the other requirements in the CRD8th Avenue. Currently, the city does not have a mandatory design review process. This item was requested by the city
commission at their meeting two weeks ago for historic preservation board comment prior to the board of adjustment, which is why that special meeting was held yesterday. But would the would the site I guess what I'm trying to understand for the historic preservation board's last correct condition would the site be going forth
for their review regardless or is that condition needed in order to make sure that it >> that condition is currently needed based on pending amendments any new development would go forward for their review but under under the current code it would require a special condition. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Do we have a copy of the your staff that one page that you showed? I'm just Do we have a copy of >> for the recommendation from the historic preservation board? Yes, it should be in your packet and what we just received. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> If not, I do have additional, but it should be on the top.
>> This is what it looks like. >> And Brandon. >> Oh, okay. It looks different than what was presented. You had a table, I think. Then we we don't have that table >> as far as the table. It wouldn't be in that is just something we've done for the PowerPoint. This was just >> if possible while we're discussing this,
could we get a copy of the >> those couple of slides? Yeah, that would be help. >> I'll print those out >> as well as the summary that you just made about the conditions. >> So, a copy of your maybe it's just a copy of your presentation. >> The last two,
>> we we don't need the pictures. >> Member Small, did you have a question for >> that was um and that was along the same line. The preservation board did not have a request for a turnonly sign. Is that correct? >> The preservation board had included that
as a recommended condition. The underlined text, I'll get back to that. I will print out copies for the board. Um the underlined text in the second row down under the staff condition header if supported by traffic and or safety
analysis at time of sight plan issuance. That is an addition after the historic board meeting that we discussed with the applicant and I I was supportive of including that in the condition if if the board's amendable to that. >> Thank you Brandon. Would the applicant please come forward?
>> Sorry, one more question. Maybe you touched on this and I missed it. When was the um current driveway approved and what was the process for that? Um, I believe based on testimony shared yesterday, the driveway is well over 50
years old. Um, the actual current surface, I'm not sure when the last permit for that was for, but it's been there for >> cut and the the driveway access point there has been over 50 years. >> I believe the applicant has a specific or exact date. Yep. >> Thank you.
Good afternoon. I'll be brief. My name is Angela Coington. I represent the applicant. Um I am well with me today are Brandon Techlinburgg and Greg Myrtle, both principles of the owner and residents of
Passa Grillil. We're here today on a request for a necessary and undue hardship variance to allow retention and modest expansion of the existing driveway. you've seen pictures of. I want to begin by emphasizing what this case is and what it is not. Not a request for increased density, new use,
or preferential treatment. The proposed lodging use is by right, and the variance relates solely to vehicular access driven by physical constraints that are peculiar to this parcel and not shared by similarly zoned properties. We appreciate the work staff and the
advisory boards have put into this application, but the applicant does have concerns with some of the conditions that have come up as recently as yesterday morning. And Mr. Techlinburgg will address those in detail. I'm just here to give a highle overview of where we are.
The staff has concluded that the request satisfies the hardship criteria, is not injurious to the neighborhood, does not impair property values, and actually reduces strain on public parking resources. We agree and are prepared um
to accept certain limited conditions, and Mr. Tekllinberg will get into those details. I'm here if you have any questions. Um but just wanted to give you that overview. >> Thank you. condition video. >> Um the uh video. Yeah, right there. Stop
it there. Hello. Good afternoon. I'm Brandon Techberg, uh one of the owners of 702 Pasigrow Way. Uh thank you for being here today. I'm going to start with a video presentation so we can um clearly see the uh video of what I am uh
we're trying to propose here. Hello. This video is for the hardship variance for 702 Passil Way. >> Looks like it's just muted on the bottom there. >> Hello. This video is for the hardship variance for 702 Passigril Way. After
having our meeting with the city manager and city staff, several staff members said they've never been to the property. So, here is the video for you along with the board of adjustment, the historic
preservation board, and the TRC. As we pull into the driveway, this driveway has been here for numerous decades. It was permitted in 2010 to go from cement to pavers, which was approved by the
city and closed out. And the alley in question is off this north garage. And as you will see in the alley, there's numerous obstacles
along with the width. So, green junction box has been put in. Light pole cables running across. Cables are very low running. White vinyl fence from the neighbor coming out running down. Uh
cement coming out. Uh per code, the alley needs to be wide by 20 ft. In places, it's anywhere from 9 ft to 10 1/2 ft. As we come up here,
you will see another green junction box piping cables, another cable, uh, light pole with cables running coming down really low. Another vinyl
pole, multiple cables running here. Only 9 ft wide. Right here, wall coming right out to the alley. You have an old school wooden barn garage.
No turn radius available for emergency vehicles to be able to turn and come down this alley. You've got multiple utilities, potable water, sewer, another water right here.
You've got a main water line running right off the alley right here. And as you come back, another utility. These are the boxes. And there you have it. Hopefully this is
a better view point for you. Thank you. >> The aerial just closeups in the alley. Thank you. Thanks. All right. And then, um, I'm going to show you some close-up photos of the
alley. Um, there we go. So you have the gas at the bottom sticking out, white vinyl fence, cement ground, green junction box.
You've got four total power poles, cables coming from the ground up. Wall going all the way. That's a Vander Preston's building right there. garage barn and all the utilities. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Brandon.
>> All right. Uh when we purchased the property in June of 2022, um I had multiple meetings with the uh city staff to know what I'm allowed to do at the property, what I can do, what I can't do. I asked every question none
that I could come up with. At no time was this ever brought up that if I ever built on my property that the driveway that's been there since 1925 would cease to be the primary driveway and that the alley would be the primary.
Um that was brought to my attention in October, the third week of October of this past year 25. And for the last three months, um, we have been working diligently on, uh, resolving this matter. And I'm here today just to be able to keep our driveway as primary
and, uh, not have the alley. Um, and then, uh, with that said, um, there are a couple things I wanted to point out. Uh, Kristen, were you able to get, um, the numbers on the, um, emails that came in? Did you have a
>> Madam Chair, if that's okay? >> Okay. So, out of the total 53 emails, 36 were in support, nine were an objection, and eight of them either had questions, comments related to the project, or other concerns not specifically related
to the variance request. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, we do have the support by the local residents. I also want to let you know, more importantly, I have the support of local business owners on 8th Avenue. in those emails the seahorse
owners paradiso Kathy Young reality and lotuga um the owner of Berkeley club is here and he's given me his verbal um approval as well and support so it's just not residents in St. P Beach Beer Pascal.
It's also the owners on 8th Avenue. Um to discuss a couple things that were brought up in the historic preservation meeting. There was five recommendations um to myself, my partner. Uh the
recommendations are more of a way to lower the value of our home or I should say our property. It is that when I bought this property, we paid $3.9 million. I would have never have bought this property for $3.9 million if I knew
the alley would be ever be the driveway of the property. Again, we did our due diligence and this was never brought up. So, the first recommendation by the Historic Preservation Board yesterday was about acquiring more property. I am
not acquiring more property um to add on to this property. So, I just wanted to be transparent. We are not acquiring any more property. Um the next item was brought up about uh the city and then it was discussed at the historic preservation board about a right turn
only coming out of the driveway and would I accept that? Um at the meeting um immediately there was multiple board members that said you can't do that. That's a double yellow line. Um I am 49 years old. I forgot what I learned in
traffic school uh when I was a student. And uh so I did a little research um and basically this is the Florida statute. Florida statute 316.087. Double yellow lines prohibit passing not
left turn into or out of a driveway. So I discussed that with Brandon this morning and he said he is deferring that um for um for the future. So it's not part of the recommendation here today.
Um, the next thing, landscape. Um, so I have photos right now and I'd love to show you of the current landscape and then I'll talk about the uh fence. Brandon, while you're pulling up the photos, just so we can um not forget and go back to things for the right turn
only component, the city's recommendation um added language that said if supported by traffic andor safety analysis at the time of plan issuance. Are you in support of that language? >> Yes. Yes. that that that was not the language yesterday,
>> but it was the language uh today. >> Yes. Um so I just wanted to let everybody know because we sent the video, we just watched the video and pictures of the alley, but uh currently this is the first picture is of the west
fence. That's all birds of paradise. You can look at the property. Um I'll get to the north side here in a second, but there's plenty of foliage on the property. This is our north fence and that is shared with Leruga on the
other side. It runs northeast. That's basically northeast right there and it runs all the way to northwest. The uh in question I think is the protection privacy of our property with the
property to the south which is 700 Pas Way. Um, right now there is a 6ft fence there. When we saw the photos today, um, there was a couple missing uh, fence panels. Um, I don't know if it's a sign or not, but um, when I left, h fence 16
months later is at my property right now fixing the fence. So, I signed that contract with them in October of 2024. So, um, there is a 6ft high fence all the way down. Um, it says in the recommendations landscape,
fence or wall, and I agree with that. I I think definitely if I retain the property, um, that fence will always stay. Um, the driveway pa goes all the way to uh the, uh, fence right now. Um,
now going on to parking passes. All right. So, when I had a TRC hearing, um the first item when we brought up the parking passes, it was asked of me if I
would forfeit 17 parking passes. I said at that meeting, no. Um then from there, um yesterday, um was new to me. The city asked if I they brought up the number two. I didn't get to speak on that. Um
the historic board uh went right ahead and put a recommendation in that I would lose all 17 parking passes and that's their recommendation. And I think the best way to describe that is I again did my due diligence. I asked what I was
allowed to have at this property if I purchased it. And at that time I was told I would get seven there are 17 lodging units max at 1.5 parking passes per unit. I don't think there's anybody here, and if there is, I love to have a
discussion. I don't think there's anybody here that would spend $3.9 million and promised 1.5 parking passes per unit. And then when there is a possible
building that's going to be uh possibly done, then all of a sudden, I'm told to give it all back. So, it's fine when I bought it when there was nothing there, but now all of a sudden I'm asked to give it all up. That would diminish any chance of a sale. It would the value of
the property would drop. Um, I'm not here to give up any parking passes at this time. We can definitely communicate and talk about that, but I don't think there's anybody here who has a house or a commercial property and if they were
told, "Hey, I need you to give up your parking passes if you want to be able to use your driveway." And that's what we're here for today, a driveway. I know there's people that are going to be talking about a building. Um, that building was brought up to the
back in July. So, I'm here strictly on the driveway. Finally, the Pasigril Historic Preservation Board on the fifth item, they asked if they could have um input on the property. Um
if anything was ever built, basically their opinion of what they think a building should look like on or close to 8th Avenue. I would like to point out that the historic preservation board does not have a codified guidelines.
There's no documents. It is basically their opinion, but there is no documents or codified guidelines ever set by the city of St. Pete Beach or the historic preservation board on what they are allowed to do.
With that said, I would like to watch a video here that we snapshotted from the historic preservation board meeting yesterday. This will be at 1 hour 40 minutes 30 seconds to 1 hour 43 minutes
20 seconds where the historic >> all the uh chair tells that tells everybody that >> behind the CRD >> right >> was never put into enacted everything changed and suddenly became an error
situation. >> Let's get through three minutes, please. >> Excuse me, Brandon. Is it possible to restart and increase the volume of this >> today? You're not prepared to >> little bit. >> So many loopholes and all the the intent
>> maybe was never put into enacted. Everything's changed and suddenly became an area situation. Let's let me get through these three minutes, please. But maybe maybe it would be nice to take at this point today. You're not prepared to
tell people that they can't have something. I'm not on anybody's side. I like I've been here. All I do is redevelop old. I have never built something new. I've always redeveloped something old. But basically, I think
you're as of today, somebody is asking you something that you probably should say yes to, but then take it from today as a date to remember and we can make past grow better by giving input on
what to choose and say these are items that the historic board likes on design. And if that hasn't been done yet, it would be a great time to add that to it if it could be. >> So, we've been doing we've been putting together for three years, Dave.
>> I would say that there's probably a way you could find a way to be more mainstream on it. But today, somebody's asking is something that you're almost obligated to answer. If that answers the question. >> Any any other Any other comments? No
comments. >> I don't know if you put your name in or not. >> You have to come up to the microphone and fill out a card. You fill out the card after just name and address for the record, please. >> My name is Marty Nora, 555 Gway Sty
Beach. Um, I have property on 8th Avenue actually directly behind the proposed set you're talking about and I appreciate what Brandon showed on the alley. You got the alley. Okay. My confusion is because you have properties that have on avenue. Um, if we have to
lose some parking spots that just concerns me. Don't know because the store is there. So, if this variance goes through doesn't go through. I just want to make sure with the properties that's being proposed. If nothing gets built there, then whoa. I really don't want the uh or TA expanded if things go
through and plus I do like the fact that things are historic because the properties we have on the ETH are historic built in to 1915 1930 so I would appreciate the keep historic ability on that property and if nothing goes through then I don't really want
that driveway expand otherwise and it's a tough decision but thank you It would have been great if I played you the right clip. Um, do we have the right clip? >> I can get it out if you want. >> Okay. Yeah. When you're ready, just let me know.
>> If you also wanted to just summarize the the point that you're demonstrating, I believe we all watch. >> Yeah, I got you. Yeah. So, the historic preservation board uh chair just said that there are no guidelines. There are no guidelines to um basically uh tell us
what color what uh look is of a property. Um and with that it's really been you know and also he ver verbally said that this will ruin pass if a building is allowed to be there. So, I
just wanted to take take a moment to look at the current modern properties because that's what was brought up was um this will be a a horrible modern building. So, these are the current modern properties that just are now um
moving into here in Passigril. >> Excuse me, Brandon, if I may. I believe we're here to talk about the driveway and not the building. >> Okay, Mr. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. I just wanted to that was number five. So that's why I understand you say it's irrelevant but to us um number five was they wanted in
you know their take on what a building should look like. Yes. And everybody has their own opinion. All right. Great. Um so >> we would only care about that if you expect there's a future variance request in this plan. >> Yeah. Yes. There's no variance. I I'm not
>> additional variances that you expect to be. >> I agree with you. >> Then please share that with us. Otherwise, we do not need to know color, shape, size for that. >> No, no variance whatsoever. I'm just here for the hardship driveway over the alley. Great. >> Um, I'm here to answer any questions
that the board might have. >> Well, discussion about the the alleyway is pretty much mood anyway. Nobody thinks that that alleyway can be used for anything. I It's barely usable now. I'm very familiar with it. If you drive into it, you have to back out of it because you cannot turn around in there.
That's one of the worst most narrow uh alleys in all of Pasigril. So that even talking about that is silly. Of course that's not usable. >> So the question is going to be can you get a driveway to go in to where your proposed hotel is going to be
with enough buffer I guess to the south side to um satisfy the concerns of the people that are here because this is their homes that are right behind it. When you say south southside, the the driveway that where it is
currently >> going east to west. >> Yes. The driveway would just be widened to the north. It would not affect um any neighbor >> because it's just going to go north into the property. >> No, I understand.
>> Yeah. >> Well, the question is about Well, we'll let we'll let people talk. Let's wait and hear from the public. Any other questions for Brandon at this time? >> Yes. Um, so with the redevelopment, how many parking spaces are you expecting to offer? >> Okay. So, I'm not developing the
property. >> So, I'm just >> Your site plan, do you have a called out number of spaces? >> Sure. So, there was an uh interested buyer in the summer. They submitted um a drawing and they had they had parking underneath the building. >> Yes. >> Correct.
>> Is that not true? I'm asking the question because I believe your request for a driveway expansion is based on a site plan. >> So with a site plan, either that or we probably don't need to look at this right now. We could continue it until there's an actual plan to dictate whether or not you need 20 or
>> 10 or 25 or I that's why I think it's relevant and we would want to understand that. >> Yeah. So, when I spoke with Brandon Barry, I just wanted to be able to have the driveway as the primary or the alley. And then Brandon and I talked and
he said, "Hey, why don't we add in the what possibly could be a wider driveway so that they can look at that?" So, kind of like not having to come back again. So, it's basically here, this is the proposal. And so, it's kind of like a
two for one. Look at it. Now, you can see what could be possible just to go up three feet. Um, but as far as I am not I'm not a I'm not building anything. I'm just the owner of the property and I'm trying to think ahead because I'm on my
heels because for four years I didn't know this problem existed. So, what I'm trying to do is just be able to if I want to do something down the road or if we do sell it, I want that everybody knows that the primary driveway is the
driveway that's been there for almost 100 years. >> Okay. So, we could just be discussing the current driveway, leaving it as is today, and approving that as a variance independent of the widening of it, and you would be fine with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Any other questions? Okay,
>> that answers mine. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And then um this is my first time. Um if uh there's any public comment um I just would like the um opportunity to respond. >> Thank you. >> Madam Chair, before you leave the mic, um did you have any questions regarding
any of the disclosures that were made by the members? Uh they they mentioned that they have gone by the property. Are you satisfied that they have open minds and they have a clear understanding of it? >> Um, there was um a day that we scheduled for city staff to go out to the
property. I opened it up. Um, I >> I'm referring to the disclosures that were made at the beginning of the meeting, the exparte. If Oh, yes. If you are you did you have any other questions to ask them about? >> Um, I I do not have any questions at this time. >> Thank you.
>> Hey, thank you. Appreciate it. >> All right. City Clerk, public comment. >> Eric Ael. >> Hi, Eric Ael with La Tortuga 1028th Avenue. Uh really just coming to support the petition. Seems reasonable to uh not
have to go through the alleyway. um really didn't have much else to add, but uh we're obviously nextdoor neighbors and appreciate, you know, the development or whatever happens there, but the alleyway definitely not being something that was usable. >> Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Tina Douglas. Uh uh Robert Douglas 2811 pass a girl away. Um I think I have misunderstood the purpose of this hearing today. Um I I my
recommendation based upon what I've heard that no action be taken today. The driveway is there. If someone buys it wants to have a single family home, they're entitled to use that driveway. If somebody wants to build incredibly
enough um 17 units on this little piece of property, then that's a separate issue that should be addressed at the time that that plan is presented to the board. So, I think there should be no action taken until a comprehensive site plan is presented to the board. Thank
you. >> Can you make a comment about that? the the zoning was changed in 2018 from RO to CRDA um which precludes it from building a residence on it. Right now the driveway can't be used >> correct
>> at all. And so when that was purchased I'm surprised that wasn't known that that front was forfeited once that transition was made. Well, we'll have board discussion after public comment, but I appreciate feedback.
>> Jay Anderson, Jay Anderson 202 has to go away. Um, what you're being presented to today is a request for a variance for a vacant piece of land. I I don't see the hardship. It's a vacant piece of land. Why do you need to widen the driveway?
Shouldn't, again, as was said, if a development comes up, let those people ask for that variance or that need that they might establish. But right now, why are you going to grant a variance to a vacant piece of land? There's no hardship. >> Thank you,
>> Mary Joe Miklish. Good afternoon. My name is Mary Joe Miklish and I have 801 Golfway the Keystone Motel. I'm located in historic Pasagor and I have the pleasure of interacting with many guests every day and welcoming newcomers to the area.
With that being said, one thing I often hear is how much they enjoy the quaint local charm that we have there in Pasigril. We have a wonderful community. The aesthetics of our community is what draws residents and visitors alike. Many guests and those discovering our community for the first time share their
gratitude and our community has not become like so many in the beach towns north of us. When properties are bought and sold, they are done so with an understanding of the community and what's permitted. Ample research is done prior to purchasing to make sound
business decisions. Oversight in a purchase of a property does not constitute a reason to have ordinances and codes changed to allow for personal gain. Codes are written and placed for a reason, and allowing the bending of one creates a precedent of what would be
allowed in the future. This is why I request that you do not approve the variance requested for the property located at 702 Pasro Way. I want to thank you for your time and efforts in protecting the community we all cherish. Thank you very much,
>> Eileen Gunther. Eileen Gunther, 111 10th Avenue. Um, if a variance is granted today, and I don't know if you're going to continue it or if you are going to make a decision today. I do have a very serious
concern about the parking passes. I was very um pleased with the fact that the one design I watched, I don't know what meeting it was at, but they presented their building uh design and it had 17
units and 17 sp uh parking spots underneath the building. And I thought, well, that was great. I had no idea that in addition to that, they were supposed to also get one and a half parking passes per unit, which I find
I for that area. I I mean I just I can't even believe that. I could understand that the city telling them that when they you know when they were asking the questions about their property that they would get one and a half parking spaces if in fact they were just going to put a
building up and it wasn't going to have any parking. So the city is saying to them, "Okay, fine. You know, we're going to provide you passes, etc." But if they have on-site parking, that should be the end of it. They should not try to take
the parking into the neighborhood. Um, I live on 10th Avenue. I am not allowed to have a curb cut. I can't have a driveway. There are no driveways on 10th Avenue and there never will be. So, I have to park in the street and my alley
is exactly the same as the alley that everyone is saying that they cannot use. I have a 10-ft alley and all the way down the alley are the electric poles to take it to nine. So, I have a 9- foot alley that I have to navigate my parking through and a turn that's basically
impossible to make. It's a three or five footpoint turn to get out of my parking space in the back. I'm saying that because when they get 17 units, 16 units, whatever they're going to put on there, and they have enough spaces on site, they're going to then create a
hardship for me. I already share this with the shuffleboard court, the museum, uh all the other parking that's on 10th Avenue that I have to navigate my spots for. So, if you do grant this variance today, I would like you to grant it with
that condition with the condition that they do vacate or they're not given any additional parking uh passes for that for that uh for those units. The other thing is is that the parking that we have challenged on um challenged with on
10th Avenue, it is a challenge, but I know that everyone is going to leave in two or three hours. They're there for sunset. They're there for dinner. They're there to play shuffle board, whatever. They're there to shop. when they put when they give that second parking pass to their
whoever is going to build there, those people probably came as two different couples with two different cars. So, they're going to park one car under the building and then that second car, they're going to say, "Here's a parking pass. Go find a place to park." And they're going to put it
there and it's going to stay in that spot for days or a week. You see what I'm saying? It's not going to turn over. So, I literally could have, you know, parking on 10th Avenue in front of my house. I would never be able to park there. So, I just like you to consider
that if you really are going to go ahead and not continue this today. Thank you, >> Dave Fineberg. Good afternoon. Dave Fineberg, 1407 Pasigrow Way. I'm here to support the variance for the driveway because it is
a vacant piece of property and what I felt was not right was the alley being the front, which I think you've all made it clear it's hard to make it accessible. So for them to be able to sell their property, I just support the
front being what the front has always been and the back can be whatever you can use it for. But it just makes sense that the front is 702 paths to grow away. It's got it there already with a curb cut. And I think if you come up with a design and you need to widen it
three feet, that's something you could probably work on. We had owned that property before. That driveway has been there a long, long time. I can't say hundred years, but I'll bet you at least 50 or more. But anyway, thank you. I just wanted to say I supported it simply
for that reason. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Jeff Katanzerita. Hello, my name is Jeff Katanzerita. I live at 1097th Avenue Pass Grill. My great-grandfather built the house back
in 20s. My great grandparents been there, parents have been there. Now I live there. Um I do I sent in a letter to the board um to every one of you on my comments. So please read them if you haven't because it'll encompass a little
more. At this time, I can't support the variance because it seems like we're in a kind of upside down world. I understand it's a hardship, but the hardship is the three people that live there, those three houses that if they're they're going to build
something, at the same time they're saying they're not going to build something, but we're talking about 17 parking passes. It doesn't make sense. So, obviously, something commercial is going to go there. It's going to go up. There's going to be some who knows what they're going to I only really care about what goes on top of the building
personally. I mean, I don't care if they build a skyscraper there, but if they're going to have rock bands up there, kids up there, rentals up there, not supervised drinking and partying. I live right behind Chatterax. I already tolerate a lot of noise. That's fine.
but to keep piling on and it's going to lower our values of our homes, especially lot 15, 14, 13, and 12 that are run along that alley. So, I'm not opposed to even the building, but until
it's a comprehensive site plan, I don't think this variance should be granted. And I agree with the gentleman said it's an empty lot. It doesn't need a variance. And that's how I feel about Thank you. Marty Nora. >> Hello, my name is Marty Nora, 555
Golfway. Uh, I'm the owner of 104. Brad and thanks for um um Paradiso and the realy shop. They're renters for me. Great renters. I have renters upstairs, so parking is an issue. Yes. And um that alley ID, he didn't show pictures. I
actually have dents in that white fence. So it is a concern. Very difficult to use. So I appreciate the consideration that that alley be not taken into consideration. As far as for the variance goes, um I highly recommend or like to work with their historical society because the properties that I
own and other people on ETH have is of historic value to us. So until I really know what's going on there, I do not want to lose any more parking spots than are necessary. I really take in consideration all that you do and I'd
like to consider 8th Avenue historic. So I am still kind of confused at what's happening. But um if it's necessary for a variance, if they something gets approved there and moves, great. If there's really nothing known what's going there yet, I guess I'd like to keep the property the way it is, too.
Thank you for your time. Teresa Chefstead. >> Thank you, Teresa Chefstead, 555 Golfway. Uh, thank you for your time. Um, we all know that codes exist for a reason. In this case, we have a code that can if it gets a variance granted
will change the character of pass with the redevelopment that's being considered. Uh with all due respect on the count that was given today, that was disingenuous to say how many support this variance or not because there's a consequence to what will happen with this variance.
And for months, I think that all of you and the commissioners and other members have received a lot of requests not to approve the development that can occur with granting this variance. In fact, St. Pete Vibe, you all were sent the
copy had about 300 responses against the type of development that can occur if you approve this variance. There were maybe three or four that said yes. So to use a count today that's talking about the driveway is disingenuous because
it's the consequence of what can be developed. and they should have also been submitted uh provided time to respond to what the historical preservation board recommended which was very thoughtful and I hope that each of you all I know you don't have much time
but I really recommend that you go back and watch what occurred at the meeting to hear all of the perspectives especially those of the community. Uh, I've sent numerous communications to the city, have gotten no responses about how
it's not 17 units, it's 34. They're going to put two rooms in each unit. And we were told in a Zoom meeting by the developer, oh well, they're only going to drive one vehicle and now we're talking about 34 parkings passes. Nobody
has responded from the city about the status of the environmental protection consent order we're under. Are we still under that order? So, I just want to ask all of you to realize that this decision today has consequences and that you look at at a
broad base. We have people that bought this property who claim they're investors. They should know what they're buying. Buyer beware and then suddenly they claim innocence. So, please consider how this impacts our community and the consequences of your decision.
Thank you. Danielle Dashel. >> Hi, good afternoon. Danielle Dashil. I own 1118th Avenue right there in the heart of Pasigril. Um 702 Pasigil Way was requested to be
changed actually by Mr. Fineberg from R to CRDA in July of 2017. It feels like yesterday. The reality is it was nine years ago. We all look the same and feel the same. I'm sure the current owners bought this property
four years ago. A lot happens in four years. If this were truly an unnecessary and undue hardship, it should have been immediately addressed, either prior to purchasing or immediately after. There
is a benefit that they currently have of having both the RO and the CRDA zoning because they have both. They have the beauty part of the driveway of the residential component. They have the alley access of the commercial component.
This request should not be approved as a result of an inconvenience, a lack of due diligence, especially four years later. Thank you for your time. Thank you for hearing us out. And um here's hoping we can come to a good
resolution. >> That's all the cards I have. >> Thank you, >> Bill Lowry. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. Uh, Bill Lowry, 2405 Pascal Way. I meant to come up just to say I'm the chairman of the historic board and if you had any questions, I'd
be available, but after I heard the presentation, I think we need to speak to clarify a few issues. I hope you all did have an opportunity to watch the whole thing because that those things are taken out of context. One thing you got to keep in mind is that this property when the CRD was created was
zoned ROR. It was intentionally left out of the original CRD. Why? Probably because of this alley issue. Okay? Because it's this piece of property is unique to everything else in the in the CRD that was originally in
there. So CRD came into effect and which the intent was to maintain the historic nature and people talk about certain things. This is all in the historic district. The historic board has an input on the whole historic district not
just the parts that are under the overlay. So the question would be and if the CRD division 40 you can read it. It's very small and it says in there, if you abut an alley, you shall use an alley. So the
question would be after that was put into effect in 2012, why in 2018 was it asked to be reszoned knowing how crappy that alley was, knowing that you'd have to use that
alley? And the answer is because ROR you only get six units in a bed and breakfast CRD you get in this case 17 units in a temporary lodging different kind of facility. So commercially it
made sense to do that. It was granted. Okay. So the question be why would you reszone it knowing that that you had to use the alley which was in bad shape. So, how has this issue been created? By it being
reszoned. That lot is perfect for ROR. When they talk about the driveway, yes, the driveway was there. It's always been zoned OR. And so, the question is now they want to have you give them a variance that
essentially they can sell to a developer. They have they're non-conforming right now. They can use that property with that driveway all for 50 years, for 100 years. Look at the look at the statutes. They're non-conforming. They're okay just the way they are. But when they
want to change it and tear everything down, for example, there's pictures of the landscaping you saw. That's all going to be torn down for a building for development. So that's irrelevant. That's why at the meeting we had, we came with up with what seemed to be a
pretty good solution to give them what they want in a way even though they didn't do their due diligence. They didn't read this stuff, but for whatever reason the city granted that back 10 years ago. And so we're just asking for
an opportunity to look at the project to see how it fits in to have discussions about the project to have a platform where the citizens can give input. Understood. Thank you so much. >> Thank you so much. >> We're welcome to um hear from you, but please keep it brief.
>> I'll be quick. Thank you everybody for your public comment. I I appreciate it. Um for uh Mr. Robert Douglas and Jay Anderson um wanted to be very clear. This is a hardship variance. I received a letter from the city manager third
week of October 25 that I could not um be able to use my driveway and that I would have to go through this process to be able if I wanted to to sell my property. We were under contract at the time. We were under due diligence. We
were supposed to uh there was different sets of dates that we were going to have to close different things. So when that letter came in at the third week of October, I met with city staff. I asked what is the right thing to do to move
forward. And the only way to be able to move forward was to go to historic preservation board meeting in December. It was brought up again in January, then to a commission meeting, then to the historic board yesterday, and now we're here. So, I just wanted to let the two
gentlemen know that I have to be here to be able to have the driveway for if I ever wanted to personally build anything or if I ever wanted to sell it to somebody who wants to cuz regardless if it's sold now or if I build or 10 years
from now, this will always be an issue. Uh, the next thing I wanted to bring up, um, the owners, uh, mother and daughter, Mary Joe and Danielle, they are the owners of the Keystone Motel. Their family owns the Hurricane restaurant,
and their family also owns 804 Pastor Growway. I I appreciate them coming up here, but they have a personal and professional conflict with my property. So, and I get it. They're in the rental business. I'm in the rental business.
I'm a good neighbor. 804 just got passed. I'm happy for it. I want a restaurant in Pasigril. We've got about six, seven vacant lots in downtown Pasigril. And I want restaurants, shops, bars. I want that for our our community
after the hurricane. Next, uh 10th Avenue owner, she just said that about the parking passes. And I want to make it very clear here. It's illegal to be required to relinquish any of my parking pass permits.
So, this is very serious. That's my property rights. Moving on to 555 Golfway. She uh brought up the uh parking passes. And I would say this for 555 Golfway because I did my research. They have parking passes
for each of their condos. Would she and everybody in 555 Golfway give up their street parking? I doubt they will. So, what's good for somebody all of a sudden is not good for me. There's properties from First Avenue to 32nd Avenue that
are condo buildings. There's eight of them. They all have parking on the street. I don't think any of them have ever had to come up here and have to fight for their parking passes for their property. Uh to finish off, I think I
covered all the uh residents um that came up and spoke. I appreciate them. I love all different views. Again, this is my property. It was for sale for two years. Anybody could have came along and purchased the property. And the last couple people talked about that I failed
to do my due diligence. This guy is awesome. His name is Brandon Barry. I did a Zoom meeting with him. I met him in person twice. We went over everything on this property. So, they can come up here after everything's happened and say, "I didn't do my due
diligence." I did. We covered everything. I have pages and pages of work. So, I appreciate your time. Um, again, if there's any questions, I'm here to answer them. >> Thank you. >> We'll now um close the public comment and open for board discussion.
Well, there is >> really important um before we commend is to um again stay focused on what this case is and what it's not. I completely appreciate the passion for pass. This is a big project that will have a lot of impact down the road and there will be
lots more discussion about what the that future stages could look like, but our duty as a board today is to understand the um the case at hand for the driveway. >> There is no project right now. Well, >> there is no project. Correct. >> There's a site. There's a site.
>> There is no project. There is no hotel. Actually, this is all just theoretical. >> Correct. Spectulative. >> Can I have you come up just to clarify something? Um because I do think that this does feel a little confusing to me. >> Even in the zoning table that was in the
packet, um it's talking about lodging units permitted. And I would think personally right now and looking at this case that has nothing to do with this discussion, >> right? >> Um it's information, but to me it
wouldn't be something I need to think about um as far as this variance. But I just that's one thing I'd like for you to clarify. The second is um the 16 foot driveway width that and just driveway
that's associated with this property. Um I see that it denotes an existing nonconformity. So that in and of itself with the association to this property requires a variance to or does not. What please
clarify that part too. >> So what what was stated earlier is correct. Based on the current use the existing use of the property that driveway can be maintained. It can remain. Um it is the association with a pending site plan that we have in house for a new development that the driveway
is required to be removed. To my understanding that's why that letter was sent earlier or late last year. Um with the the reason and I understand that could be seen as superfluous information, but this is being brought forward based on some pending
development that requires this driveway to either be retained or expanded. We went with 20 feet because that is what is proposed under the pending site plan that we have under review at this time. Um the intent was to not bring this forward for the retention of the
existing driveway and then have to bring it back again for an expansion because we we know what based on the site plan that we are currently reviewing what the required driveway with is going to be. >> Okay. Just this seems like we are getting a cart in
front of the horse because I am also hearing from the owner of the property that there is he has no intention to redevelop but instead to sell and therefore you're if this site plan is not something that
would be de I just struggling with maybe why we're gonna have to look at this case if the current driveway in its existence can be maintained with the current property as a nonconformity that this really just comes to bear when it
becomes another developed piece of property. Correct. >> We have a development application in place. It has not been withdrawn at this time. So, we have statutory guidelines or timelines >> in association with a development. What did you just call it? You have a de
>> we have a statutory timeline to review development applications once they've been applied for. Thank you. So, this is in alignment with this development application. >> Even though this property hasn't sold, you still have that. >> We do have a pending application in house for development. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. So I mean based on that I mean I I my current view is that this is a maintain the current driveway
in alignment with its development application and the condition that they maintain the buffer and no no variance beyond what they currently have. I do see the criteria 8 as being
met in terms of unsafe kind of difficulty with the zigs and the zags behind these buildings um and the utilities. That's that's what I'm looking at and based on my site experience and seeing the video.
It seems to me we should continue this until we see what's going to happen on that property because right now we we don't even know what's going to be there. How big it's going to be. Is it 17? Is it 34? Is it not going to be a hotel? Is it
Nobody knows for sure. So >> I'm just hearing because of the development application and timeline that >> Well, we are we're responding to the driveway. It's a commercial property that will be developed and we know that
the back alleyway is not usable. It's not safe. So the only way to ever safely enter this property is going to be through a drive a driveway. >> So I think there is a very logical hardship and reason to package that formally together to enable to be a usable site.
>> Yeah. >> Um I don't think there's any reason to make the driveway different than it is today because to your point, we don't know what the sites would be. We don't know if there's any reason for that. We don't know if cars are going to be going in and out. Um Brandon, we're not going to take any additional comments at this point. Thank you.
>> Um but I do um believe that there's a case to be made that the existing driveway should be packaged in a usable fashion. >> Just leave things as they are until >> I was going to say, but I don't think at this time because we really don't know what's going to be in that property. It
doesn't it just seems like yeah the card is before the horse on this. >> But nobody's going to be able to move forward in developing that site responsibly without knowing that they're going to be economically able to maintain it, >> right? But you know, we're also talking
about the vehicle traffic going on past the way and what size that driveway might need to be. And I don't think we're prepared to answer those questions right now. >> Agree. >> Because we really don't know what's going to be built there. But would that preclude us from at least being able to maintain the it the way it it is in
conjunction with the current status of a commercial property? >> Well, it can stay it can stay the way it is as long as they don't do any modifications. But I mean, you can't build any like a residential unit on there right now because the zoning was changed to CRD.
>> So, it can continue to be used as it is. they can use the driveway as it is right now and then when the time comes when they do a commercial development that would be the appropriate time for us to look at you know variance for the driveway and and determine you know what would be the appropriate size and safety
and so on passive railway >> is your thought that the property is usable as it is today like >> well I mean it's useful as a rental property right now that's how it's being but we're talking about some large commercial development and I just don't
know what that is. It might be what they're looking at now. It might be something else. They haven't sold the property. So, we really don't know. And we're asking to give a variance, which really it's a financial hardship right now. It's not any other type of a hardship because we don't know what's
going there. >> Yeah. No, I I just agree with that. I think it should be a package. Honestly, >> I agree with I agree with that, too. That's It's too early for us to be making this. >> I don't know what it's going to be. Um if if they want to change the zoning on
it and it was a single house, would we be having this discussion at all? >> Yeah, we would actually we would still have to have it because it's non-conforming for any development is what I'm understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong. If it was RO that could >> if there's any development that's done
on the property then the variance for the driveway to be maintained ne is required. Is that correct Brandon >> or they'd have to shift back to an alleyway only access. >> Correct. Any redevelopment of the property >> redevelopment correct whatsoever. >> That's correct. Yes.
>> Uh Brandon, you reviewed this case and the criteria that are needed to be met. Can you um remind us why um you felt they were properly meeting the criteria needed? >> I do feel that there's a special circumstance for this property that's not shared among others in the same
zoning district. I do believe they face a hardship because of that. Um I don't believe that there's specifically a related to this specific case, the actual variance that's being requested a purely financial basis. I do believe it's a hardship of the land due to the location
and there were other challenges. The alignment in condition 8 with the purpose and intent of the district by providing safe and accessible parking on the property is something that I do feel that supports the district purpose and intent which is largely the intent of
the 8th Avenue zoning district allowing for the the support for the existing mixeduse characters. That was part of my basis >> and that's based off your expert opinion. >> Correct. Yes. >> So, I think that's important for us to consider as well as we have our staff that's reviewing these cases based off
the criteria that's in front of us. Um, and they are telling us that their expert advice is that this there is a hardship being faced in this current state. >> I I think I understand that. I, as I said, I I don't know what's going there
and it's it's hard to have that discussion. We really don't know what they're going to be building. That's that's the concern that I have. >> Yep. Understood. And I I think where I'm at is the use of the alleyway would suggest that it meets the unsafe
condition for an entering and exiting that property. just to be able to have development take place would need us to approve a variance to allow them to maintain their driveway on pass a
growway as 702 pass a growway. So to me it's it's a whole different conversation about what they're doing, but the fact that they're in order to develop anything need to have the declared variance
approved for a driveway access. Um >> why does it need they already has the driveway is already there. You're saying there needs to be something >> for any development. For any development they have to have a variance of it's a non-conforming right now. So for the property to nobody wants the property to
stay the way it is you know and so for anything to happen the driveway has to come into conformity which needs a variance to do that >> and so today we would have the opportunity to simply leave the driveway as it is but bring it into conformity
um and then that you know the project continues and what that looks like and everything will have full review and >> later >> later Yeah. >> So we have to give them a varian system the way it is basically >> in order to bring it into conformity.
>> Okay. >> I don't think if we're looking back at the conditions that were put forward by the both the city and the historic board. Um, in my opinion, most of those are irrelevant and should be addressed at the point of developing the plan and
the site in terms of parking and, you know, design and all of that. Like, I think I would like us to stay completely focused on the driveway bringing into conformity with the property. >> All right. Well, I I'll attempt to make a motion unless there's other
discussion. I'm going to make a motion that um case number 24142 702 Passacril Way that we approve the maintaining of the current driveway with
the condition that there will be a buffer of either the landscaping the fence or the wall maintained and installed on the south border of that driveway at all times. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> I'll second that. >> Roll call, please. May I ask for clarification? So, when you say to um approve or maintain the current driveway, um is that so the alleyway is out? >> Uh yes,
>> I'm we're talking about the variance of approving the driveway. I'm I'm sorry. I don't know what you're asking me, declare. So, my understanding is that there are two requests embedded in this variance request. One is to allow them
to use the existing driveway, which is I think what you're saying. >> Yes. >> And not require them to use the alleyway. >> Correct. >> Because the code requires that now. So, you're going to give them a variance to not require them to do the alley and use
the existing as the main entrance into the property. Correct. be the only you can't that alley is >> correct. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. And then there is no nothing in the motion regarding expanding it. >> Correct. Thank you.
>> Okay. We had a motion and a second. >> Yes. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Core. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Garshaw. >> Yes. >> Member Small. >> Yes. >> Member Schmidt? >> Yes. >> Chair Chase? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Moving on to second case for today. Case
number 251452814 Passagirl Way. This is a practical difficulty variance. Thank you all for your time. We can give a moment for the >> room to >> if we could take all conversation out of
the room please so we can continue today's meeting. hurting cats. >> All right, Brandon. Thank you. >> This is a necessary and undue hardship variance case number 25145 for the property address of 2814 Pastor Way. Tom
Presman of Pressman and Associates Incorporated for Matt Foster request a variance to construct a six-foot fence wall within the 10-ft required front setback along the Sunset Way frontage of the double frontage property where fences and walls may not exceed 4t in
height. The request is made pursuant to land development code section 6.15 and 20.20. Here's an aerial of the property. Uh it's located on the west side of Pastor Way, just south of 29th Avenue. There is
a vacant parcel between 29th Avenue and the subject property. Sunset Way, which is a road, is to the west of the property. You can see on the zoning map, this has a zoning designation of RU2 passer overlay. This property did go through
the design review requirements with the historic preservation board. So we don't see many of these in St. P Beach. There are a handful between 37th Avenue and 34th Avenue on the west side adjacent Gulf Boulevard in El Centro. Uh
the remainder are primarily in Pasigril uh just south of 32nd as well as between 27th and 20 um uh sorry 30th Avenue. Properties in this area include this lot are are defined as through lots which
are lots that are um have opposite sides of lot each containing frontage on a street. These are defined in our land development code as shown on the screen. Interior through lots contain two sideyards and two front yards for setback purposes. That is what applies to the subject property. Unlike alleyway
lots where the yard facing the alleyway is considered a rear yard, the front setback standard is applicable to the west and east sides of the subject property which face Sunset Way and Pass Way respectively. So the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow for I'm sorry the request is written there incorrectly but in the table it is accurate. Um they are requesting to install a fence wall that extends to the property long line along Sunset Way. Uh
you can see here a recent survey of the property. There is a home under construction. Uh this is the foundation survey showing the conditions at that time. Uh since this foundation survey was filed, uh there was a request made to install a pool in the backyard of the property.
You can see here the request, this was the markup that went out with the uh notice for this hearing. The area in green is the location of a fence wall that is proposed to be 4T in total height that fronts to the bottom of the screen pastil way. The area in yellow
without the red outline is the location of the fence wall at six feet in total height where it is permitted to be by code. That 10-ft area behind the dash line at the top of the screen uh that's the west side of the lot abuing Sunset
Way. That is where a 6- foot tall fence wall is proposed. That is within the required front setback for this lot. um that is the portion of the fence wall that requires a variance. Were that fence wall four feet tall or were it to be stepped back to the dash line, it
would meet the code compliance standard. It is the fact that it is six six feet tall um west of that 10- foot setback that this variance is required. >> Brandon, sorry to interrupt, but do you have a site plan that shows the pool? >> I have a I have a sketch of it showing
coming up. Yep. You can see some existing surrounding conditions um on this slide. This is a street view, but it uh it shows the property without or sorry, the the adjacent sunset way without um there were large number of vehicles when we
went out. So, this is a cleaner view of the street. Here's some photographs of the site itself. This is looking from uh the two sides of the the two street frontages. I can see the view here from Passer Way
looking toward the Sunset Way side of the structure from the Sunset Way. Another view out toward the street. Looking at the under construction uh pool area at the back of the property.
Another view toward the backyard. This is taken from the sunset wave frontage. Safon's request is unlikely to cause significant adverse impacts related to aesthetic incompatibility or visibility relative to existing conditions. Looking at both the proposal, which it's been
several years for the property to the north as well as the existing access conditions of the property to the south, um we do not believe that there will be any uh visibility concerns based on the construction of this fence wall. Fence wall particularly the wall portion somewhat matches the design of the re
the residence. It does have a um solid portion as as shown in the plans attached that matches the um view of the building. There is a composite in between. It's a solid woodlook fence portion. And we did ask that the applicant bring a an example of this if
they have one available. However, staff finds compliant landscaping could be effectively used for privacy rather than a fence wall approved by the subject variance. That would be on the sunset way where the variance request is being made. Additionally, the current layout of the site with the home nearing completion provides limited opportunity
to design the site to mitigate the impact of the request. The request had been made earlier in the design process. It may have been better comprehensively planned with the layout of the home as is found on nearby lots and was shown in the photos um earlier in this presentation. So, you can see some of the past reviews
that staff has undertaken with these requests. Starting on the left side of the screen, that was a design review request that went forward. It did show a pool. It did show the pool at the 10- foot setback from Sunset Way. That was reviewed back in October of 2023. There was no reference to a fence wall at that
time. Uh showing the middle plan, that was in March of 2024. That was when the request was approved for a building permit. Um at the time, the pool was not shown. Often they are added separately. So that that's not of any concern to staff. They did show the frontage landscaping along Sunset Way that was
required and that will be checked at final final inspection for the home. And then you can see the uh pool plan on the right hand side of the screen. Uh you have sunset weight at the top, pass away to the bottom. Uh it's a little hard to make out on the screen, but at the time
when this was applied for back in early July when we approved it, um there was a 48 inch tall aluminum picket fence that was proposed along the property line. I believe later that month was when the application was made for the subject fence wall. Um so we have been uh
working with the applicant and discussing this with the applicant since late July but there were multiple um revisions to the plan for both the site and then there was the revision for the or the submitt rather for the pool uh that did not show the fence wall.
So our request for the applicant testimony we did share this with Mr. Pressman um as a request for testimony earlier uh I believe it was last week whether an open design more compatible with the balconies and other features of the residence was considered instead of the woodlook insect composite material
that was shown in the plans and if they have a rendering of the wall or the sample with the color proposed uh composite inset material uh we would appreciate that being shared with the board as well. Staff recommended conditions. Uh we have two. Unless an alternative design is
approved by the historic preservation board through design review, the fence wall shall be a a complimentary cloud and masonry to the primary residence and the fence screening panels shall be a composite or aluminum with color and design compatible with the primary residence. Item two, any future driveway
access provided to the subject property from Sunset Way shall be subject to the visibility requirements of land development code section 6.21 21 as amended which may include required modification of the subject wall or a future variance. They do appear to have a gate for a walking path, access to
sunset way. It is not wide enough from what I can tell for a drive aisle and they're not proposing that under the scope either, but we do want to reserve the right to review that in the future should it be necessary. Um, as always, motion options. Motion to approve the case with or without staff
um proposed variances or with other variances that are supported by the board. A motion to deny the case or a motion to continue the case to a future date. And again, I'm sorry with that case number that is 25145, not 25125. Happy to take any questions.
>> Um, real quick, Brandon, were you saying that um your understanding was landscaping could be a potential alternative to the fence? >> Correct. They would be allowed to have a fence wall of four feet in height within that yard just as they have on the passer way side. That in combination
with landscaping and they do show that the landscaping plan that's proposed. We do allow for higher shrubs and so on. It's just the fence wall specifically that had been cited multiple times in the application as a as a privacy issue as a basis for this request. >> Is there not a law for or
whatever? Is is there supposed to be a fence of at least six feet around a pool or am I mistaken? There has to be a fence of at least four feet. Um, it needs to be a pool compliant fence and there needs to be a gate at least 4 and 1/2 ft tall, but it's it's not required to be six feet. This would be
surrounding and acting as the pool fence to my understanding. The pool barrier rather. >> So, it's legal to have just a 4ft fence around a >> a 4 foot as long as it's a pool compliant fence. Yes. And Brandon, do you have um other pictures up and down that street just in
terms of precedent for uh what's going on in that area? >> As you mentioned, that's kind of a unique area with two front yards. So, this is showing, and I do want to point out that the image on the top is
is four years old at this point, but looking to the bottom of the screen, those are some adjacent properties that have some barrier of some kind in the frontage yard that faces Sunset Way. Uh, they do tend to be recessed. And Kristen, if you could just comment on
these, I believe you. >> Sure. So, as far as the 2020 view, um, as you know, as a result of the hurricanes, it's hard to get a blue skies day of looking down Sunset Way without multiple trucks, um, blocking it. So, I just wanted to give you an
overall perspective of that improved street. Um, as far as when we did our site visits, we we took a a J uh south and the property on the left hand of the screen that is adjacent to um the subject property. So, they had a little
knee wall high fence there. And then as we traveled further south, there's been some homes in the middle that was demolished, but you they left uh the existing fence. So, you can see it's set back. It may be higher um than the four feet in height, but it's recessed
approximately probably the 10 feet and then they went up to the six feet in height. And then the one on the far right, it it is recessed. It that one I believe also is a corner, but they do have It's hard to see, but they have a 4 foot high fence probably meets that
setback requirement from the avenue which it's located and then also Sunset Way and then it bumps up to meet that requirement. So those are just examples in the area of other ones. >> So all all up and down there appear to be compliant >> for the most part. Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Any other questions for Brandon at this time? >> No. Thank you, Brandon. If the applicant would please come forward. >> Oh, thank you. >> Good afternoon, uh, Madame Chair and board members. My name is Todd Pressman,
2002nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg. Uh, I'm here, uh, happy to be working with, uh, Mr. and Mrs. U. Foster and their daughter Kendall regarding practical difficulty. That is
uh your staff has made some positive findings about and really what this is about is really nothing more than what 99.8% of every other single family resident residents in the city is seeking, which
is just simple security and privacy and safety of their home and their backyard. That's what this is all about. So, I do have a PowerPoint for you to walk you through. Uh the issue is to increase the wall height within a front yard from four feet to six feet. Not a great amount of
degree. We see these obviously at virtually every residence in the city of St. Pete, St. Petersburg, Penelis County, and onward. I think you're familiar with the location south of Penelis Bayway. Uh Brandon, we appreciate the help of the staff by the
way. uh showed you the location and this is a site that sits between Passogril and Sunset Way. Now, very importantly, this is a lot that's called a through
lot. And as your staff indicates, there were only a handful of these in the entire city. So, it's very unique. It's very singular. And that site has two front yards. has a front yard that acts like a front yard, but its rear yard is determined to be a
front yard setback, but still acts as a rear yard where a pool and eye and deck would go. So, when you look at that situation and how it affects this property specifically, again, just a handful in the city as indicated by your staff, it
creates a tremendous problem. It creates a tremendous practical difficulty. So when you look at a typical residential lot, front set back 10 feet, rear set back is zero. But a through lot is different. Front set back on the 10, a front set back 10T, front set back 10 ft
on the rear. You're allowed the 8ft wall, a zero foot setback, but only a 4ft wall, a 10-ft setback. And looking again at typical residential lot, you have an 8ft wall, a zero foot setback. What the fosters are asking for
is a sixft wall at 10 foot setback. So this is a photo of the rear as it's being uh developed and finished up at this point. Uh you can see part of the pool structure there. And this is very important for you. Uh the original
submitt that was made did not have a lot of detail of the fence structure or wall structure that was proposed. So here's updated for you. As you can see, it's used as a wood material, which is very warm, and a masonry element, which is
indicated in the staff report at some point would be preferable. Now, the wood feature would match a feature or two on the home. So, there is a compatibility between that and the home. And this is just another view of it.
It is, it does have some slatting, so it's not a complete forceful wall, but it provides a decent amount of security. Safety is an important factor with a with a pool to be sure that that's safe
and privacy for the family. Like again, I'm going to beat a dead horse. 99.898% of every single family home in in in City of St. Pete has that. Now this is what was submitted with the
application and you can see there just wasn't a lot of ability to understand or get a concept of what's called for but it is important to note that part of the structure is six feet part is four feet so it's not the whole length being six
feet part of this being four feet let's look at the city staff report because your staff made some very strong supportive statements both summary and >> can you explain Explain what you were just sharing on the previous slide >> right now. >> No, the previous the four versus six.
Yeah. What what you >> this this was the original submitt into the file. Uh this was all the staff had to go with which is just a black and white but also showing part of the structure would be six feet and part of it would be four feet.
>> Okay. So you're you're not saying this is a this is coming in this area that we're talking about right now. >> Yes. Th this is a schematic of what is proposed and I showed you this photo >> proposing a step down in the back
>> as as shown here. Yes. >> Okay. So, this is all along the backside that is on Sunset Way. >> That is correct. >> I'm sorry. >> Sorry. I'm Foster on the make a correction. >> The 4ft step down that would be at the front yard where the actual driveway is.
So the variance is just for the area around the pool which would remain 6 feet. This shows the step down to 4T at the driveway for the true front yard where the driveway is >> which is not where >> passway >> the part on Pas way is going to be only four feet though.
>> Okay. >> And that's not what we're concerned about. >> Okay. I'm I'm going to ask maybe you can put this on your overall layout of the site plan because I still am thinking I'm hearing two different things which
is along the back side of the or on the the second front yard the one on Sunset Way where there is a that this is me looking on Sunset Way towards your home. I will see a six-foot fence and half of
it and four foot fence on the other half >> on sunset side of your house. >> On Sunset Way, it'll be the sixoot fence >> all the way up and down the entire the entire >> correct. Okay, that's >> the 4ft step down >> is at the front yard where the driveway is.
>> Thank you. >> So, I apologize for confusion. I actually had some confusion and I think we cleared that up for you, ma'am. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. So I apologize for the mis uh uh m misdirection. So looking at the staff report on their summary they note and this I think this
is very important. Staff this is quoted from your staff report. Staff finds a subject property or variance not substantially out of character aesthetically with the neighborhood nor likely to cause visibility issues and existing access conditions would not be significantly degraded. I think those
are very strong important statements from your staff. So look at let's look at the criteria uh which is a four-step criteria. The first criteria is just stating what the practical difficulty is which in this case would be from 4T to 6 feet in terms
of height of the wall structure. Criteria number two is whether an adverse change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood and your staff finding which I think is the strongest statement that that you'll hear from the staff report that will not have an adverse impact on the
neighborhood. That's a very important finding for obvious reasons and I think the staff states this very well that desiring limited additional privacy in the back backyard is not unusual or out of character. Fences and walls of six feet are common in the backyard of
properties that lack two opposite frontages. Looking at criterion number three, whether the difficulty can be obiated by some other method feasible for the applicant. Well, sure. I mean, there's a lot of different options. There's a lot of different materials in including
screening that could address this issue. So it's a question of determining in a development the structure that's going up the compatibility of it looking at security privacy and safety and
aesthetics and I think my personal opinion is I think what has come forward uh is an aesthetic element uh it does provide those aspects uh but in regard to criteria three I mean that that really could be applied to any practical difficult coming through in terms of
some other solution. ution is some other way to go. But I will tell you that uh the fosters are open-minded and they understand that there may be a set of concerns and we're always happy to work with the city or with the board, but we think that this is a really good um
presentation of how to best address the situation. Criteria number four is whether in view of the manner in which the difficulty rose, the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance. And the staff finds that the visual impact of this variance is likely
significant lower than if a similar request were made along the property line of pasil. Staff finds the fence wall design to be somewhat complimentary. So those are the specific criterion regarding practical difficulty which I think your staff has responded to very
strongly and in a very more than reasonable manner. Um, I will say to you that Matt did provide me if we could go to the overhead just real quick to show you these that there are some circumstances in the city where
these structures do exist. This is one and this is the other. Matt made a tour looking around for similar circumstances. But I would say in summary, madam chair, board members, that again, as your staff has indicated about this practical difficulty that
there are just a handful and all the fosters are looking to do is have a home like everyone else does that provides security, privacy, and safety in their backyard. >> Is this right here? Is this on Sunset Way? >> No. Go ahead. >> No.
>> So, if you go back one, yes, this one is on the 2900 block of Sunset Way. So, it's the next block over. >> Is that that's six feet? >> Um, yes. And this one right here, that
is uh the 30th block. So, that is um separating past the growway and sunset way. And that is a end lot which has a six-foot fence. And the code says you can't have a six-foot fence on a end lot like that right there. And I I brought that up during my conversations with
Brandon Barry um and the city attorney and they actually agreed and I gave them the permit number and you know they said that they must have approved it by accident then that it shouldn't be allowed. >> Yeah, I do see a step down to four feet.
>> That's at the front yard which I will have at my property. Yes. >> Yeah. Any questions for the applicant? >> Yeah. Do you have that um do you have that image of where I'm and I I think you showed it but the pool and where is
how far is that set off of the >> far back from sense away? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> If we could go back to the PowerPoint, please. Thank you. >> Is that what uh >> is that what you wanted to see? I think um
>> that one does not show the pool the staff has. >> Okay. All right. Maybe I'll ask Brandon to share. Okay. I don't have any questions for you right now. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Board members, thank you. We appreciate your time today and we are happy to answer any questions and be able to work with you in any manner that we can that we can. Thank you.
>> Thank you, >> Brandon. If I may, I had one last question for you. You mentioned something earlier about a walkth through. >> Yes. And I I can show it on the same site plan. Let me get that pulled up.
So, while you're pulling that up, we're going to see a walk through, but also understand what the current setback is of the pool. And if the sixft fence was butdded up against the pool, is that at a setback from the sighteline that would
be appropriate for six feet? >> So, it would I believe the water's edge of the pool is set directly at 10 ft, which is the minimum that is the minimum front yard standard. and it was proposed to be constructed. I pulled up the wrong request, but this is showing that Walt
gate at the back of the property. You can see that opening on the top of the screen along Sunset Way. I believe it's it's approximately 5T wide. >> Okay. >> And then looking at the pool plan on the right side of the screen there,
that is a I apologize. It's it's an 11 foot set back from the water's edge to the uh the property line along Sunset Way >> and it requires a 10 foot to have a sixft wall. >> Correct. The the wall would have to be set back to 10 feet. >> Okay. And then you Okay. So they can
have a sixoot wall. It would just be at 10 foot not at zero which is what's being requested a zero foot setback that can you go a six foot wall >> that like the nice um orange um graph that you do or
That shows exactly what they're asking for. Yes. >> Yes. So, >> yes, they are they are proposing effectively the fence wall being on the property line. There there there may be a footer. I don't know if it could be placed right at the 10- foot mark based
on where the pool has been approved to be located, but um the the applicant may be able to speak to that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Isn't look looks like there's a a building maybe two houses down that's right on the property line, too. I don't know if it's a garage. It's like a large white >> Yes. I believe the the neighboring
property or two properties down as you mentioned the the building is right on the property line. I believe that's currently proposed for demolition. So we don't know if that's going to >> If I may, that is correct. We have a demo permit in for that. So once that is demolished, it will be required just as
Mr. Foster to meet the setback requirements. So it's a pre-existing knock. >> Are you talking about the one with the big white fence that you see on Passro Way? No, the one to the south, the more Mediterranean, it has the that one with the detached garage in the back. >> I know.
>> So, one, yes, correct. Once that has been removed and it's a pre-existing non-conforming setback, anything that will be constructed will need to meet the setback requirements similar to the property in question. >> Is that also a through lot? >> That is also a through lot.
>> Correct. >> Any other questions for Brandon? >> Thank you, Brandon. Do we have any public comment? >> Oh, I did. Can I ask the applicant a question about that? But I would like for you to come back. I'm sorry. What was your name? >> Matt.
>> Matt. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Foster. Um, could you clarify? So, it it sounds like there is a solution for you to get the privacy with a six-foot fence um at a 10-ft setback. Given the location of your pool, there would be opportunity for you to do that. Is there a reason
that that's not something that you're willing to put in that? >> I don't have the pool plan in front of me, Brandon, but what was the distance from the edge of the pool to my current setback? >> You said 11. >> 11. >> It was It's proposed at 11.
>> Give him like a one foot. >> This is a zero foot. Yeah. So, >> and if I may, that is a proposed plan. So, we have not gotten our final asbuilt survey as part of the new home. So, again, these are gueststimates. >> Okay. >> But they're proposed. I just wanted to put that on the record as well.
>> Brandon, is it 10 feet from the water line or the end of the coping >> from your sighteline setback is what we're talking about >> requirement is okay. So the coping is at 10 feet. >> Okay. >> And I'm fine like I'm here to be a good
neighbor. I want to work with everyone, you know. Now, I'm even fine with bringing the fence in a couple feet. And I would like to put a hedge on Sunset Way. So, you really, as far as I know, there's no hedge height requirements. So, technically, I could go even higher, but I would like to put a hedge on
Sunset Way as extra privacy. Um, it's just, you know, having a 4-foot fence by a pool area with my wife and daughter is just a big privacy security thing for me. Um, and there's other houses, you know, in that area that do have that
six-foot fence. So, I'm I'm here to work with the neighbors and and do what we can to make this work. >> Are you good for public comment? >> Sure. >> You ready? Tina Douglas. >> I'm Tina Douglas. I live at 2811 Passway
and I'm having a bad allergic reaction right now so my voice is hard to hear. Um Bob and I have owned the house across the street 2811 for nearly 50 years and um have seen a lot of changes in pass grill and not all of them are good and
we all want to be good neighbors but um when Paragan Construction which I believe is Matt's company bought the property and started to build uh he initially asked for a variance to build a house taller than was allowed and that variance was requested so they could
have an elevator access to the terrace on the top and that was denied by the board of adjustment which I appreciate. Um, now we come along and I hear from Brandon that there hadn't been any fence or wall or any kind of uh demonstration
of how they were going to make privacy and safety that they're so concerned about in Pass Grill. I can't think of a safer or more private place to live than where they've chosen to build. Um, I do understand that it's good to keep people's children and dogs and cats out
of their backyard, but Sunset Way is a way that everyone in the neighborhood walks their dogs, rides their bikes, it's a thoroughfare because it's much safer than Passway. And I believe that if they build the 4ft
fence and put the hedge in as he's said he would like to do um that doesn't cause any problems to them as home homeowners and it softens the entire effect of this very large home that's built on this property. I will say that
it was a vacant lot when they bought it. There had never been a house on that property. So he was starting from scratch with a design and all of these things could have been taken into consideration when he first built the house. So I would ask that the committee
please consider that even though they've brought up that there are examples that are not within the um planned 10- foot setback or required 10-ft setback that most all of us do
follow the rules. We all that I know of, my neighbors all have followed the um six-foot fence and 4 foot where it's required. So, because they've started from scratch, this is a brand new house and it's I know they want it to be beautiful and be a sub a very lovely
safe home for his family. I think it can be that way and still not have to have a variance for a taller fence that blocks out and makes it more um unapproachable and not feeling like it's part of the
neighborhood. Thank you all for volunteering to >> ask you a question. I'm I'm trying to understand how the 10-ft fence would affect you adversely. >> 8 foot not going to affect me. It's not going to affect me across the street, the other side, but I think for the general look of the neighborhood, um,
most every other home along there has either a a small a low lower fence, a lower hedge, or a lower wall. Many of them have no wall at all. It's just the yard. So, I know my pool answering his question. So, it doesn't personally affect me,
>> but it affects the whole look of the neighborhood, and that's what I'm concerned about. Thank you. How many of those places are pass through housing? >> Excuse me. >> How many of them are >> She's just not information. The >> Well, I'm just >> It's okay. Thank you. >> Well, if I could just have you talk into
the mic as well so they can get Thank you. >> Any additional public comment? >> Jack Slothburg. I'm Jack Slothburg. I live at 106 29th Avenue fronting uh Sunset Way. U we're
directly across from the new construction. I'm here to oppose the variance requested for 2814 Pass Way. My wife and I and several of our neighbors on Sunset are against the changes. The
hardship changes are entirely of the builder's own making. From preconstruction to now, they have fought to push the envelope beyond the city's rules. An opaque 6-foot wall on the curb
of Sunset Way directly across from us is uncharacteristic of this remarkable neighborhood. The original permitted pool plan featured an open aluminum fence with foliage. A six-foot wall at curbside
will encroach on an already narrow side street. It routinely becomes congested and dangerous on weekends, holidays during construction on Pass Grillil Way.
Currently, this road is always in use by foot traffic, dog walkers, bikers, frequent speeders, and on many days, it's reduced to a single lane by the lawn and work trucks. This is both a safety and aesthetic problem that we
hope the board will protect us from now and in the future. Thank you for your time, >> Bob Douglas. Just a 2811 pass go away Bob Douglas just in supplement to what my wife said it's it's um
I understand the the concern but um this building has taken up the entire lot. Um the pool added on the back uh finished the job. I I doubt if there's
um more than two or 3% of the lot that is uh of pvious in nature. Uh it's just one thing after the other to to um cover the entire lot from uh street to
street. And if it can be done with uh vegetation, I think that would be much more acceptable to to everyone. uh visually, conceptually. Thank you. >> That's all I have.
>> We'll close the open discussion and have board >> I believe the applicant has rebutt. >> Go ahead, sir. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, madam chair and board members appreciate your time today and reviewing this issue and your patience. Uh
in regard to the last gentleman, um there have been no variances for open space or ISR. So the lot is not overbuilt. There was one request for height which was denied. So uh what is existing on the site does not over encumber the lot as far as I understand
that respect. Uh I I think I've heard from two of the residents that a landscaping element would help soften the site and would help make the street look better. And Matt has indicated to you and we would ask you to consider a condition that the fence be put at a
twoft setback and hedging landscaping be put along the front. I think that addresses very well the comments from the neighbors. Um but I have to dwell back on this. Um, this is a practical
difficulty and there are four criterion. I think your staff has well supported those. We believe your staff is well supported those. This is a unique and singular circumstance. I'll say again, excuse me, but I'll say again that all the fosters and their
daughter Kendall want is the same safety, security, and privacy that others have. In regard to Miss Garo's comment, with great respect, putting their fence at 10 feet right at the edge of the pool is just it's it's cumbersome. I mean, you want to have you
want to have use of your property to a certain extent certainly. But I would say with great respect, putting a fence at 10 foot right at that pool gives you no room to walk around the pool. gives you no room to be able to use your backyard in some manner like others, every other property in the city to uh
relax, put down a chair, sit, enjoy the pool and the sun. So, uh I'll just finalize by saying again, we're suggesting condition which we think is a good movement to provide response to the staff comment and the neighbors and uh
we appreciate your time today. Thank you. All right. Well, now open for board discussion only. Um there's a lot of factors going on here, right? Like I think >> this is a unique situation. through lot is unique just like when we see pry lots
and the lot and um what but >> um I'm also frustrated by the timing of this request and that this is new construction which I agree should be able to conform to code with the exception of the fact that it is a unique lot um and that this has come
somewhat at the 11th hour where the house is so far along in the process of being built that there's not a lot of flexibility in terms of being able to move things around and you know >> um I appreciate the need for privacy with a pool and a family and safety like
that's a real concern you know as well. Um so I think that the landscaping option solves a lot of you know the challenges from a safe from a safety and security standpoint because there is no limit on hedging. So you can have those
go you know to six feet. Um, >> yeah. And I think, not to cut you off, but I think also you I think is is it Gulf Way that is right up and down the public beach? Is that the name of the street? Like >> Sunset >> Sunset Way?
>> Uh, the one that borders like where Paradise Grill is. >> Paradise Grill would be Golfway. >> Golfway. This is Golfway. Thank you. >> Up and down Golfway. I think we can see where a lot of people have pools in the backyard and they're uh conforming because I can walk past and see their
pools. So, I do believe that there's a lot of precedent for I mean and that probably has a lot more risk for maybe concerns of safety and security given all the public passing through. So, I would agree that I think there are um
options with landscaping and I think based on the location and the opportunity to have tackled this in a different way to get the six foot wall with a 10-ft setback could have been taken to into account. I I think 4T should be fine with landscaping. I don't
see where the pract practical difficulty was met. >> Agreed. >> But Brandon, you showed back up. So, I feel there's something we need to hear. >> I I did just want to point out to the board in Pastor Gril specifically, it doesn't apply in other neighborhoods in
the city. The city does limit hedge height, new newly installed hedges to 4 feet. They're treated the same as fences and walls. So, I just wanted to make that clear. >> That's good to know. >> I think that's a reasonable compromise. The 4ft setback, six foot fence, and a
hedge no taller than four feet. >> No, >> I'm sorry. What are you s suggesting? You were talking about a 4ft setback. >> Oh, no I didn't. I >> Oh, I misunderstood you then. >> We had at one point thought that they could have a set back up a budding
practically where their pool edge is. I think what they came in as far as at the last comment said that was of not of interest. So they offered a twoft setback, right? So um yeah, was perfect. >> But what if we said a four foot setback is necessary?
>> I don't think that's what they requested. So to me I I think what and I well anyways yes you could you could find like a compromise I >> I mean I >> the fact that the hedges can't be six feet it makes a big difference to me
because that like was a way to somewhat compromise and offset that. >> Um >> the wall could be six feet and then you could put a 4 foot up to a 4ft hedge in front of it. And I mean it's an attractive hole, but it's personal taste, right? Everyone views these
things differently. >> I would say the setback then needs to be pretty much right up against their their pool. I I I I don't see why 4 feet versus 10. I that's a pretty substantial
difference. So if the pool edge is at with coping is at 10, I mean then I would be more apt to say, okay, we could give them a variance for a 9 foot setback, not four. They had an option to build this house
differently. Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> And this sets precedent for a massive amount of redevelopment that's going on and especially right in that little block. So I think to me I I that's just where my head's at right now. That's the I think you nailed it with that comment,
Kathy, that like um got a bill. We need to be with new builds, we need to be careful that we're sending the right message as to what we will tolerate, you know, from a city perspective. Um >> that's a good point. If the house two two doors down is >> about to get demolished and um
>> true. And so I >> what would the setback be if he had agreed to have 2 feet of landscaping in front of the fence? I mean, I guess right now we could ask if if there is any interest in um a continuence on this
where you we can get an actual asbuilt survey and understand what if if you're open to uh if you are really want six feet then we would want to understand what the actual >> Yeah, I I do have a question. So,
is there a hedge height requirement or not? because I have an email from Brandon Barry from months ago saying that there is not a hedge height requirement. So I I could have a higher hedge and I feel like that's no longer true. So I I don't know what's right and wrong there now because I have an email
from Brandon that says I can go to any height I want with the hedge. I'm not trying to go crazy high. >> Okay. >> Um >> I don't know. I I Kristen, can you >> So I don't know the answer to be honest. >> I am looking. >> Okay. Brandon had said earlier there was
>> and I did I've I've already moved the the pool to go halfway underneath the porch to allow more room for this. >> Is it unique to that? >> It would be unique to the pass overlay. >> I hope you understand where we're coming
from. >> Yeah, I I'm trying to be a good neighbor. I'm trying to understand the hedge height because I have an email from Brandon that says I can go to any height with my hedge. I'm not trying to go to any height, but I do have an email from Brandon that says that, so that'll help me understand everything better. >> We're we're checking it.
>> Okay. And >> and I do believe >> if I could ask direction from the board, when you're asking for continuance, you're asking for an alternative plan. >> Well, from the numbers that we have today are somewhat, you know, guesstimates. And so we're trying to understand what are the true measurements for
>> built setback for your current pool coping line. And if there first of all if if you want us to just look at this variance as is today then we can we can certainly um you know we can look at it that way which is zero uh and you
mentioned a twoft setback but it was a zero zero foot setback with a six-foot fence and that that was the request I think then you compro you said we could take two feet set back so I think what we're comp we can we could look at that
and we could take Uh we could motion that out and take a vote or what we're asking is if you would want to come back next to our next meeting, do an as with an asbuilt survey of where the actual
fence line would have to be based on the buildout of your pool and we could look at it with that in mind and you could come back with a update to your current request. There would be consideration for an alternative than what we've talked about today. Correct. Is what I Okay,
>> that's that's an I think that could be an option if the board was open. >> I think that's a good idea. >> You are open to that. >> You agree to that? >> Yeah, because it's not finished yet and there's still a chance to change things if >> So, >> I'm allowed to have a hedge at the zero foot property line.
>> I I we're researching the hedge height. >> We were discussing >> Well, not hedge height. I'm just saying I'm I'm allowed to have a hedge at the zero foot like right on my property line. Correct. >> You are able to have that. We're just checking. >> So my question is, yeah, if I could have
a hedge height that you won't even see the wall on the other side, like a sixoot hedge height, that'll even block the wall if I move the wall in several feet. >> So, and I I apologize. I was looking and not listening, so I may have some
questions. Are you saying you would like to maintain the six foot high fence >> with relocating it or pushing it more with a increased setback from Sunset Way with landscaping in the front to be determined of height and to be
determined of set front yard setback from Sunset Way? >> Yes. >> Well, let me ask you that. So to confirm, I can have a 4ft wall at the zero foot property line. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. And I would always have wanted a
hedge at the zero foot property line because I think that does look better and I love great landscaping and I plan to put in a lot of landscaping. So regardless, I would have always moved my fence in several feet to allow for this hedge. But my question is really is the
the hedge height because I was under the impression from Brandon's email that I could have as tall of a hedge height as I want. Um, again, I'm not trying to go super high, but that's just what the email states from him. So, that kind of will answer my question. If if I can
have a six foot tall fed hedge and move the wall in a couple feet to where you won't even see the wall, that's what I'm asking for. And like I said, there are other homes in the overlay district that do have a six-foot tall fence. So I'm
I'm not the first one around the pool area. >> So if I may, with your pool permit application that came in and you had the 4ft high fence that met the maximum height requirement
and I'm trying to see was that actually a zero foot setback as well. the 4 foot fence. >> Correct. >> I believe so. I mean, my pool contractor applied for the pool permit. Um, and then after that was done, I submitted a
plan revision for the fence back like in July or August. And and this has kind of been ongoing since then. And I'm just trying to see where you said you you had the intent that you would have always had a set or your intent was to have the
setback from Sunset Way, but if the pool the original pool permit application showed the 4ft high aluminum fence which is to code and meets our our height requirements if it was not showing that setback from from what you proposed and what you
were going to then install because I'm just saying to the board as the 4 foot high fence that was originally approved as part of this and I I'm trying to find it on this little screen. Um if it had a zero foot setback >> where the applicant is now saying he he
would have wanted to provide vegetation, he wouldn't have been able to do that. >> Yeah. And then during the historical review process several years ago, I believe you guys had me add in the masonry wall on the front towards the driveway area. Um which is fine. And so
we're just trying to continue that around the whole property. So it kind of all ties in, but that was something that the historical board made us add back in 2023, I believe. >> Yep. And that is a part of a requirement of division 20. >> Yeah. So I'm just trying to kind of make
it go around the whole property instead of just the front. So it all ties in. I think it would look a little weird changing fence styles. >> Have we been able to confirm the the hedges? if if we could maybe take a >> a recess >> recess because I have eight million.
>> Yeah. >> Open. So, >> um >> let's see. What time is it? We'll reconvene at 4:30. Sounds perfect. >> Five minutes. >> Yes, sir. We're not We're taking a fivem minute break. >> Well, I just have one I have two
questions. One is the the picture >> is we're not going to take any questions on the case at this moment. We'll reconvene in five minutes. Okay, we're just on intermission. Well, we'll be right back. >> Bathroom break, basically. >> It's okay. what the hedge height rules are specific
to past grow. So according to land development code and appreciate again the board just giving me a moment to look at several things here under land division land development code section 2020 B or actually C1B
where um or actually B let me try that again 2020 C1A an opaque hedge with a height not to exceed three feet when fully mature. So that that is our land development code which does >> three three feet which does
>> the max. >> Yes chair I mean member core. So there is a maximum height requirement and I did ask Brandon to forward me the email that Mr. Foster um was referencing.
And again, because this is a special lot, it does um relay that six feet is allowed in the sideyard. Fences cannot exceed four feet in height in a street facing rear yard or rear 15 ft. This
again, this is a front and you are able to use hedges which do not have a height restriction. So, I can see where there could be some misinterpretation of the land development code. Um and because of that I do want to and with the um board
attorney's um vision and guidance >> we did advertise for relief from division 6.15 as well as division or
section 20.20. So because that is under there, you could have the ability to allow for a higher landscape if you so desire
>> as a variance as an additional variance. >> So I don't I don't have any issues. Um what she's saying is basically that the noticing was a little bit broader perhaps. >> Correct. um so that the public would know that
there could have been some um additional deviation or or change to it. Um I I think that would be sufficient u if we referenced the LDC. >> Okay. >> So we so if you'd like to go ahead and
um amend it to include some additional um consideration. So we could potentially um provide a variance to allow him to have a six-foot hedge but require the fence to remain at the four feet for example. >> That's
>> and that would still be giving him like >> I think what you should put into the record is a little bit of discussion on um the the rule is basically three. We've heard four and now you've proposed possibly six. So maybe just in the
record, a little bit of discussion of that and how that might impact the um the criteria. >> Yeah, I I but if if I'm not mistaken, it sounds like the applicant came in today with a different set of criteria and
therefore the variance request was about a fence, not about landscaping heights. So, I'm looking at the applicant to ask if a if you would like with this given this information an opportunity to
continue this and reook at what it is that you need based on landscaping and fence heights and setbacks. >> If I can have a six-foot hedge, I'm fine with a 4ft wall. Um, I was under the
impression that there was no hedge height requirements due to the email from Brandon. So, this is kind of news to me, but like I said, I'm trying to be a good neighbor and make everyone happy. So, my biggest thing is security and privacy. I wouldn't be moving to pass
the girl if it wasn't safe, but you know, all it takes is one time, you know, for someone to walk by. So, yeah, if I could have a six-foot hedge um at the property line on Sun Sunset Way with a 4ft wall, that would make me and my
family happy. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I don't know. >> That sounds like a resolution to me. >> Still like still a six foot wall of intensity on um at a zero foot setback, but
>> it's a wall of hedge. >> Okay. Yeah, >> it's still a wall, >> but is it going to be right on the >> right on Sunset Way? >> It would >> No setback at all. >> I mean, I can bring it in >> a a foot or whatever. Um, you know, I'm
just trying to make this work. >> How wide would the head >> I mean, technically it has to come in like a foot because you can't plant the I would use occlusia and you can't plant it like on on the curb. So you would technically have to like plan
it like a foot in anyway. >> That was my my point. >> And then the landscape maintenance person kind of >> width for the hedge. >> Yeah. So it's you're going to I mean but we can indicate like the requirements and what that would be. But if it was if it was set back with a hedge to start
and then the wall behind it that feels a lot softer >> um and gives if we think about again this is a through lot and so most backyards you are have be able to have that six foot privacy. So we're changing the conversation from
fence height to hedge height >> basically. >> Well I came into this >> not realizing there was a hedge height because Brandon told me there wasn't. This is all news to me. I'm I'm just trying to make this work. >> I feel like this maybe needs a continuence because we need to reset
with you and on what it is that your real variance request is. That's what I would probably motion to do if you are immenable to that. >> I'm I'm trying to get resolution today just because this has been ongoing since like June or July. Um there's been a lot
of back and forth and then um it it's taken a long time to get to this road and it is holding up exterior construction cuz when you do block and stucco there's going to be a lot of there's going to be like dust unfortunately. Um we're not putting on
exterior finishes until this wall is in. So it is holding up construction. So, yes, I came in today with the six-foot fence, but I am open to, you know, just doing a hedge instead. I'm I'm just trying to
make this work for everyone, and I'm just trying to get resolution. >> Pool is fully constructed, correct? >> Yes. >> You have an asbuilt then survey of where the pool line is today. >> It would match the pool plan. The asbuilt survey that we did was done
at slabpour, which is before the before the pool was in, >> right? the final survey would show the pool. Um, but the pool that's constructed as of today matches the pool plan that um, Brandon has right here. >> So, you're confident the pool line hits
the 11t set back and with coping it would be no more than an additional 10 then it's really at the 10 foot setback line. So, you're confident that yes. >> Okay. Then we can we can work with Okay. And what you're asking now is that we
are you're requesting of the variance to be focused on the landscaping, not a sixoot fence. >> Like I said, I didn't know there was a landscaping hedge issue because I was told otherwise. But I, you know, if if there is, then yes, I would just like to
request a six foot tall hedge to soften things up. >> So, if I could just jump in. Um, also my concern is really what the record includes. Um, basically in order to grant the variance, there should be competent substantial evidence regarding
the various criteria. I'm not certain how much information is in there already regarding the hedge. Um, so I'll defer to your attorney as well if you feel comfortable going forward or the alternative would be to do a
continuence, but a continuence that's very focused on what additional information the the board might want, but I I did hear you say that you have concerns about delay in construction. So, this one's a tough one. >> Well, first of all, the record, I'm an
attorney, not a lawyer, zoning consultant. Well, I just want to make sure I clear the record. I I think the staff report does refer to particularly criteria number three AVA with other uh materials or other uh materials or items
and I think there's a reference to landscaping and screening. Um typically in city county codes screening includes walls, fences, hedges, landscaping they're all virtually put into the same category. So with the greatest respect, I would say that the discussion that
you've had regarding screening and buffering includes landscaping and includes uh walls or fences and is referred to in the staff report. >> Substantial evidence in the record. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Very good. >> Thank you.
Um, I guess independent of the material, I I would still stand with the our our previous conversation about the location and the setback. Um, when I say location, I mean setback is
still I think of something that we would want to require to maintain. If that's going to be at six feet, then I think the minimum setback is currently should be at 10. And if we gave any kind
of variance that with given where the pool is, I maybe we would give a variance of nine. But otherwise, I would say we're having the same conversation. It's fencing or it's landscaping. It's still a matter of setting a precedent for new builds on in this
area, which there's certainly going to be a number of. >> Yeah. So that's where I'm at. Anyone? >> Well, I I believe >> that's before we make a motion. >> His construction concerns are are valid. >> Yep. >> Came in looking for a fence and he he's
looking he's we're making an adjustment, the board of adjustments to take the fence back down to to where supposed to be. And with that, he can put his hedge a little higher and that softens the blows for the people walking down the
alleyways. And >> I think it's a win-win for everybody if that's if everyone's acceptable to that >> at a matter of where it's being placed the setback. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> At at a zero lot line or zero setback or with that hedge being pushed in a little bit.
>> It's going to need a as he said a foot anyway. You can't plant it right on the ground. >> Well, that's still on the by the time it grows out. It's basically a zero set. >> Maybe uh >> do you have thoughts on location from a hedge perspective if that's something that you're thinking? >> I appreciate all the points. I think
it's a it's a tough call because you are setting a precedent. Um the the hedge is going to grow. It's going to get wider. It's possible especially a tall one to keep it trimmed in. So you have to allow for growth. I'm just struggling with how far if you want to get it close to zero,
how far back do you go? Um, I don't have enough information to really say what that would be. Do you give the Did he do the hedge two feet, put four footprints behind it? I I don't know. >> Valid points.
>> Okay. Well, I'll make a motion to deny case >> 24145 for the setback variance for six foot covering
uh at a setback of zero foot >> and the denial is based on the criteria that has not been satisfied. >> That correct? Correct. Um specifically
>> I don't there is I I do not see a practical difficulty variance. I believe that there is satisfactory solutions with the current pool fence that was outlined in the permitting process to address the needs of safety.
>> I believe it's criteria three. >> Criteria three. >> Yeah. whether the difficulty can be obligate obliviated by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the variance criteria three. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Do we have a motion? Do we
have a second? >> Can please explain again what the motion is >> to to deny the variance for >> deny it and then he's back at square one again. >> That's the >> she's denying it. >> And he can have a 4 foot he can have a
4ft fence at zero. Um or a sixoot fence at a 10 foot setback. >> Yes. >> Well, that's not satisfying. >> Okay. If I if there's no second, then my motion dies. >> Yeah. >> Do you have an alternative um option you
want to discuss? >> No, I mean I I think it seemed reasonable to say you can put a hedge in. We can decide how many feet back from the road. I understand because it is going to grow. And then to have the 4ft fence which allows privacy and keeps
that fence low, that makes more sense to me than just denying it outright. And then he's he's got he came here for nothing. >> Well, that happens. We have we have specific zoning and requirements for the way that things are developed. There was
a presented package with permit approval with this design that perfectly hits all all of the marks >> and it's in new >> and now there's and yes and and there's several other that that are going to be happening in the same vicinity. So you are correct >> but we probably want to be as flexible
as we can be for all these other cases too because every property is unique particularly along that way. >> This is a very to me it's a very clear-cut design of a piece of property. There's it's not on a curb. It's not on a corner. It's just like the units on
Gulfway where we look in the backs of their homes and their pools and they maintain their wall heights and they maintain their shrub heights. And this is even more private. >> So that's where I feel like the practical difficulty is difficult for me to
>> I hate to interrupt, but um was there actually a second to the motion? >> Motion died. >> Okay. So now we're looking at an alternative motion >> unless Yeah. Unless there's a second to mine. Correct. >> Well, I think they're saying that it's
died for lack of a second. >> I think it's great that you have people putting in new construction and beautiful homes and and I think it's going to happen in all these streets that people are going to want to come in and change some things as far as zero lot line. They're in a
tough spot, especially that street. >> Yeah. and we'll probably have to work with a lot of people on this. I hate to discourage, you know, new construction and um and building nice homes. I think we don't have to go to zero, but maybe
we can, you know, compromise somewhere in the middle, you know, back to the discussion of the 4ft fence. And if and if they want to put a hedge in, they can. That's not a requirement. Just the 4ft fence. If they want to put a hedge in front of it that goes six
feet, that's up to them. But >> but maybe saying the setback is five feet instead of 10 feet and then they can do what they want with that five feet. >> Exactly. >> That's a good compromise. >> That's a great compromise. >> Um if they want to put a hedge and then the vent, you know, then that's up to but yeah. >> Does that make sense to you?
>> Well, I I would rather not bring the applicant back up at this time. >> Um how do you feel about that, Abby? Are you firm on Yeah. Okay, >> members, >> I like your proposal. I think that uh
and I don't know if we need to ask him, but that's what we could we can make a motion for and approve. And if you can live with that, that's great. Um, >> so was the question we're we've notificed
with the 4ft fence? >> No, it's about landscaping now is what you all are talking about. >> No, we're talking about a 4ft fence, the 5ft set back. Landscaping his discretion. If he wants the privacy, puts it up. If not, wants to leave it open. That's okay. >> Landscaping has a limitation though. What we just heard in land development
code 2021 C1A, it is a it at >> this in this area can be three feet maximum on the front yard setback on the front yard setback. >> Otherwise, it sounds like it's adhering
to the same setback rules as we were discussing about the fence. >> Point of order, Madam Chair, which is always an order. I believe your attorney told you that you can approve a variance for higher landscaping. >> Correct. We're having a conversation based on the noticing that the noticing
has been satisfied that component. >> My comment was, you know, was there adequate evidence and has there been adequate testimony? You believe that there has it is a decision for the board of adjustment to make. >> My my point of order was that your board
which I heard a comment which I thought I heard could not approve above three feet. you've instructed them that they can't approve above three feet for for a hedge >> if if they believe there's adequate evidence in the record to support an approval of that because the noticing
has been proper. >> Yes, ma'am. Just a point of order. Thank you. >> Um >> I think that's a confusing point because we heard two conflicting uh descriptions of it can be three feet or it could be higher. We're just
replacing I think the the fence conversation with a landscaping conversation now. It's all still about height and setback of whether it's a land whether it's a landscape item or a fenced item. >> So it sounds like the two potential options on board are denial new construction could have been done
differently. have the four foot fence as permit. The original pool permit was presented at the zero lot line or um potentially offer a 5-ft setback with the opportunity to have a variance for a
six-foot hedge should he like um because of the pool >> or not >> or not. And then if he doesn't want to do then he could just go back and do the 4ft fence at zero lot line too. It would give him the option to put in a to have a six-foot privacy barrier if he would like to.
>> Madam chair, if I may, if we are going with another option and possibly the landscape height, um I would like to recommend that I would like to see a plan come in reflecting that for the board to approve and everybody
have a clear understanding of what the request is and the rep the approval. The only caveat to that is it would be a possible continuence in order to get that to you to the next hearing. So if there is a time constraint with the applicant, I was just putting that
there out there as another option. But if there is a time constraint, I would like for the board to see it as well as staff to make sure whatever you approve is what is installed and maintained. Especially I would suggest a condition if you do an additional height that
that's maintained in per perpetuity which makes staff have to check on that. >> Yeah, >> that makes sense. I I think I'm coming around to this is just reminding ourselves as a board of how much new construction we have going on in an area that we want to be very
protective of from a pastoral perspective and that we have to set set presidents and um if you want to remake your motion Kathy I'm supportive of that.
>> Okay. Or or you can make your motion. Um, which I do you want to make a new motion to what you're proposing? >> I I would like to motion that we allow a 4ft fence at a five foot setback and that a separate variance would be issued
for landscaping so that Kristen and her group could review and approve what that might be if they choose to have that hedge put in. Uh board members, if you are requesting additional height with the I'd like to
know what the maximum height could be on that as well as setback proposing right now 4ft fence, 5 foot setback and then they have to come back. >> They don't need a variance for that though. >> They can correct at zero. >> They can do a 4ft fence any all day long. We they don't need anything from
us on that. So it's really all about >> That's true. That's true. >> The hedge location and height. >> It's really the hedge. Yeah, you're right. You're right. So if you want to make a motion on that, you can go ahead. >> But but I'm not sure to word it if you want to know what the hedge material what the hedge is before that's
approved. >> I think you just have to think about the long-term impact as Kristen was just saying of now like we're basically putting in an a unique like
situation for one property that the city would have to monitor. in perpetuity to make sure that the height of that hedge stays. >> That's a good point. >> Yeah. >> Um and then that anybody could start now asking for, you know, land. >> I don't see there's any way we can
settle this without a continuence to I mean, as you said, they can build a 4ft fence anyway, >> but now we're getting in this all this about regulating the height of the fence and do they have to come back and inspect it every now and then and that. >> Correct. If if neighbors start
complaining about the height of their hedges, he could come and say, "Well, the board said I could put it up to six feet and take his tape measure out." So, we're not here to >> the other factors he like to member Gosh's point there. You could basically
put a sixoot fence at the, you know, pool line. Um, it's not ideal because you lose your backyard, but there is a way to do it from if that is more important from a security, you know, privacy perspective. Um, >> agreed.
>> Or you put your 4 foot fence at the zero lot line and then you put a hedge behind it with approval. You want to hire >> another time. I mean, >> yeah. All right. I'll make a motion um to deny case number 25145 based on the lack of
evidence um heard today to indicate a practical difficulty variance. >> Criteria three. Is that >> criteria three? >> Yes. >> I'll second. Roll call, please. >> Member Small, >> yes.
>> Member Schmidt, >> yes. >> Member Core, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Garaw, >> yes. >> Chair Chase, >> yes. Motion carries. >> Moving on to our final case for almost this evening. >> I couldn't hear the motion >> if the motion u passed as a denial.
>> Is it possible to ask a question? >> Um not at this time on this case. We need to move on to the next case. Case number 25141 1982 West Vina Delmare Boulevard. Third, third and final case for today and necessary and undo hardship variance
case number 25141 for 1982 West Venina Delmare Boulevard. Scott Edward and Kathleen D. Sullivan request variance to install two tie poles with the 10.5 ft northern uh northeastern Ruparian line setback where 17.8 8 ft is required with
the outer pole installed at 40.5 ft from the seaw wall where 35.6 ft is a maximum distance permitted. This is made request this request is made pursuant to land development code section 6.23D3 and 4.
Here's an aerial of the property as a zoning of RU1 residential zoning. It is a single family detached zoning district. The applicant is requesting two variances both to the docks residential dock section of the code. That's 6.23D3
and 4. That those pertain to length and vapor inside setpack for a dock. The maximum dock length is 50% of the zoning lot at the waterfront that is 35.6 ft for the property. There is an existing dock that is at 40.5 ft for the
property. They are proposing to match that distance from the seaw wall at 40.5 ft. That is for the outer tie pole of the wet slip. That is a new footprint. It does require a variance. There's also a side reparian setback requirement made pursuant to item four. Uh the
requirement is for 25% of the zoning lot at the waterfront that is 17.8 ft. Existing is 27.2 feet. uh proposed on the northeastern side is 10.5 feet, southwest is 18.7 feet that is existing.
There is no change. It is only the northeastern proposed setback that is required. Uh it should be noted that the requirements of these sections or this section these items u may be varied administratively provided that a signed statement of no objection from the abuing property owners is provided with
the building permit application. In this case, the abuing property owners to the left southwest signed a statement of no objection that the right northeast has not signed a statement of no objection that does require variance approval to be sought and that is the subject case.
Here's a survey showing existing conditions of the property. Here is the request showing the proposed wet slip. The two tie poles uh the bolded black tie poles at a 10 foot 6 in setback from the extended raparian line um are the poles that require the
subject variance. That is for both the setback as well as the length of the outer tie pole. The inner tie pole is compliant with the distance from the seaw wall standard. Here's some photographs of the site showing the signposting
showing the front of the residence. that is currently proposed for an improvement in elevation. This is showing a lookout from the seaw wall toward the marina across the way. Another looking to the northeast
and another looking toward the side dock to which the tide poles are proposed. There is a sailboat proposed and that um tied up on the northeastern side. Uh that's that is uh proposed for the wet sled. Uh this is looking for from the street
end across the way adjacent the marina toward the property and the abuing property to the northeast. Staff runs the request is not out of character with other similar doc conditions in the vicinity that were approved through administrative waiver meeting criteria eight of the u
requirements for un unnecessary and undue hardship variance. It would resolve the wake issues advanced by the applicant as the basis for this request. This property with its neighbors face potential commercial wake issues that are not experienced in significant proportion among properties in the same
zoning district fulfilling criteria one of the unnecessary and undue hardship variance requirements. However, we do ask that the applicant provide testimony as to how this request stems from a condition from the lander structure rather than purchase of a new vessel. That is condition two of the criteria
and whether the request is a minimum necessary or whether the slip could be relocated or reduced in width to provide a lesser impact on the abuing neighbor as condition seven of the unnecessary and undue hardship criteria. So, we do ask for applicant testimony um
that the applicant or their agent who I understand is present should provide testimony on the following. Whether conditions have changed during their ownership of the property such as relocation of wake zone signs. Whether there has been a noticed increase in commercial activity affecting wake at their property. Whether the tide poles
for the slip could be moved in any distance to reduce impact in the neighbor moving them further from the extended repairarian line even if they don't meet the necessary setback. and whether the dock could be otherwise modified such as exploring replacing the slip of the outer side of the head. That would also require a variance and waiver
pursuant to the land development code or modifying the head width to relocate the poles further from the neighbor's reparian line. Should this request be approved, staff recommends two conditions. Authorization is granted for wet slip as depicted on the dock plan submitted for the subject request only. That would includes any
modifications made by the applicant as as submitted or or by the board. Future installation of a boat lift must meet all required setbacks and length limitations. Must receive approval from affected neighbors. It requires a subsequent var variance subject to the standards in place at the time of
application. Item two, a final asbuilt survey shall be required which shall provide the length of the tiepoles from the seaw wall and reparian line to ensure the slip has been installed in accordance with the dimensions shown in the request. your standard motion options. Motions to
approve with or without recommended staff conditions, motion to deny the case, motion to continue pending submitt of additional information. Happy to answer questions. >> Thank you, Brandon. Can you go back to your page on um the criteria
or condition? Yeah. Okay. So your administrative waiver could you I'm not sure I know what that one is. >> So that's docks are one of the few structures in the land development code that allow for neighbors to effectively
provide some degree of waiver that that is the administrative process I'm discussing >> and this didn't go through because one of the neighbors >> correct >> that's correct. Yes. So, criteria A. And did we actually get the neighbor not
approving it or just no comment >> at when this was submitted? Um, the neighbor had requested a signature from that neighbor and they had not received a response from my understand, but I I have since heard from the neighbor that's affected and their letters were in the packet.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um and so the that aside then what you're saying is that criteria one can you clarify what that one is? >> That is there is an a hardship of the
land structure building that isn't experienced among other properties in the same zoning district. Generally speaking, properties in the RU1 district, which are obviously numerous throughout the community, um they don't tend to face the issue of a commercial
properties across the across the waterfront from them. So, to the extent that there is wake issues at the property, that would be something that although they share that issue with their neighbors, it's not experienced in a significant um frequency among other properties in the same zoning. And
there's no nothing new that's changed, correct, for properties. >> That's part of what I've asked the applicant for testimony on. If there's been a change in the wake zone sign, if they've noticed an increase in commercial activity at the properties across the way, if there is some testimony they can support in that
regard. >> Thank you. Any other questions for Brandon? >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Brandon. if the applicant or agent would like to please review the case and thank you for your patience with us.
>> Good afternoon. Thank you so much. Okay, so um thank you so much for your time and your patience. I really want to thank Brandon for his detailed report and Kristen for all their support and um the professionalism of actually going through this and all of your time and
your dedication to the service of our community. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. Uh my name is Scott Sullivan and um my wife over here is Katie Sullivan and those are our children. We uh our home is currently 1982.
>> It's a little hard to hear you. >> You can't hear me? >> That's better. Thank you. >> That's better. Okay. Um, our home is at 1982 West Vina Delmare uh Boulevard as as Brandon uh showed us. Um, we've lived in St. Pete
Beach um since 2017. We've had this property since 2019 and uh we're finally back in it after we're going through this extensive uh renovation and lifting it, though it's not done. Um, we also have today my marine contractor is B,
uh, Brian Berg from Edge Marine and, um, he'll be happy to answer any kind of technical questions that we have today. Um, what we're asking for is a limited variance to install two typoles on the right side of our existing dock to
safely moore a 30-foot sailboat. That's really the the the we're very very clear. We're not changing the dock. the dock is there. Um the sailboat's currently tied to the dock. Uh from a safety perspective,
it's really suggested that we have two more typoles in there. And the the real issue is that we're probably in the most it's a commercial waterway. There are sign we we are inside the no wake or not no wake idle zone but there's a
significant amount of boats that still come through there and create a lot of wake and uh there's a lot of traffic and that's what is causing the the issue. It's not the sailboat's not causing the issue. It's the environment that we're in right now. We are not asking to
extend our dock. We're not exa asking for a boat lift. So those conditions that Brandon and staff has recommended, we are fully supportive of. Uh just looking for the two pilings to safely secure the vote. Um we did go through the processes as
Brandon mentioned for uh looking for a letter of no objection. We did get it from our neighbor to the left. We had a a conversation with our neighbors to the right. I believe I believe uh he's here today. He verbally said uh it was okay to provide the paperwork and then they
wouldn't engage. So uh now I see that they've they've written some comments. Um we've had some other conversations with our neighbors including two doors down who recommended Edge Marine uh and he's built a used them to build a dock.
He's also done other work in St. Pete Beach. So he comes highly recommended. Um the other significant thing is we've gone through all the proposals and we've gone through different types of
alternatives and in the opinion of and we can ask um Brian but in that opinion this is the minimum variance necessary to safely morale boat and um appreciate your time and happy to
answer any questions. So is you want to put these two tie holes in because you're getting a larger boat. Is that the reason? Or is it the current boat you have now? >> Current boat that's there right now. >> Then why do you need the two more typoles? I don't really understand that.
>> Well, if I could see um can I show the picture again or also have some pictures. So, uh, yes, on the left we have a boat with with our lift and on the right, um, the sailboat >> sailboat
>> has been there and it's currently mored. Uh, however, it does get a a significant amount of weight. >> Um, and this is where from it's been recommended that we put the two tide poles >> because there's a lot of weight because of the traffic right there by the marina and everything.
>> Correct. that the the current construction is not really sufficient. >> How does that mitigate the wake? It doesn't, but when we have problems and we we've, you know, had >> Can I help my husband?
>> Hi, I'm Katie Sullivan. Um, so my husband doesn't know a lot about sailboats. So, it would need spring lines to cross to make it more secure because without the spring lines. Um, we've had it and it keeps banging and banging and banging and then when the
weather goes bad, it can go the other side. So, we have to like constantly be replacing lines because we don't want to hit it our into our neighbors dock either. So, the most secure way to do it from edge construction is to put these spring lines in to to put the posts in
and then run the lines like crisscross. So then the sailboat is absolutely stable because you know it has this hull that goes back and forth and back and forth and you're not going to put it on a lift. Um so it keeps it the most secure so it doesn't run into the
neighbor's dock and no matter who blows through um going to you know sea critters or um the warf you know we're a-ok okay it's safe. >> You're not would be a huge wake to take you over to bang into the neighbor's
dock anyway. I can't imagine that possibly. >> No, it wouldn't. But the lines could break is the problem. >> Just adds extra security. >> We can ask ask that. Can you clarify um is is this sailboat been morowed here
for how long? >> Couple of years. >> Two years. >> Okay. And um did you explore are there some other options given the space that you have in the back of your home? Maybe
it's not aligned with your existing dock, but were there other I I heard what you said about the fact that the location of these >> we could do it in the front, >> but then I guess we can >> we actually looked at that. So, we did
explore other options and I've been through all of them with our contractor. >> I can't. >> All right. Thank you. >> Um my name is Brian Burge. Uh 4790 95th Street North in St. Petersburg. And
um this the um the the um Sullivanss here were they actually represented themselves which was nice. Helps me. Um and so anyways, we pro we provided the the docu or the knowledge first of what we should do and then some
documentation so then he can move forward to apply for this variance. Um and basically what we propose to limit the and and do something the most cost effective way as far as you know less alterations, keep the cost down is to uh
propose this wet slip on the north side of this dock. Um, we also decided, and some of you may know, a lot of cases you can see wet slips that have multiple tie poles and and sometimes two, three clusters in one
position um to keep the um, you know, aesthetics uh, down or less evasive and and make neighbors happy. There's just single tie poles here. In my honest opinion, in that area, you could probably easily do double double pilings in those corners.
Um but again we decided to choose a single one in each corner, two total. Um and um from a functional standpoint and safety standpoint, the boat, as you see in this photo, should stay oriented in
that position. Um that's the way it should sit for uh whether it's being hit by wakes or wind. That's why the boat's designed and it's shaped that way. If you were to turn it any other direction other than its face right now, um it's
just it'd be it could be detrimental. Um anytime you turn a boat sideways, it turns into a sail. That's a sailboat. Uh but the boat itself, even if it's a center console on a boat lift, um you know, the boat catches wind. So, putting
the boat any type of parallel position to the seaw wall uh really at any property, but more so uh this property where it's located would not be a good idea. >> No, you can't do that. I understand that. Where would the the two poles be put? You're talking about two more typoles. >> Yep. So, if you want to get an idea of
where they would be, um that boat is about 10 feet wide roughly. And so if you can picture about five feet to the north of where the boat is sitting now, um there'd be a piling in line with the end of the dock at the 40.5 ft off the
seaw wall. Um and then the other one would be about um almost even with the back of the dock, kind of where almost in line with those two taller poles. If you can see those sticking up basically straight across
from them. So, you're going to have the tiepoles on either side and put the boat in in between. >> Yeah. The goal is to always keep if you have any wet slip. Um, no matter what the boat is, whether it's a sailboat, a power boat, or whatever, you want the boat in the center of the slip, the only
way to to, you know, get a boat in the center of a slip and off the side of that dock would be to have pilings on the outside of it to keep >> They said the beam was 10 ft. >> Yeah, I think it's right around Oh, sorry. It's 11. >> What is the actual spacing then between the poles? The spacing is 15 feet in between the piling.
>> Okay. And can it be less than that? Does it have to be that wide? >> It's not really suitable. So if the boat the boat's almost 11 feet. Um so you uh the slip itself would be about four feet wider than the boat. And the bare minimum you'd want is about two feet on
each side of the boat if it was centered. >> Does this in any way adversely affect the property to the looks like it's the north. >> To the north. Um, you know, I do this a lot. We typically would never design something that would adversely affect
any neighbors. Um, and it's my opinion that, uh, it will have zero effect. Um to give you an idea once those pilings are installed um and you can see from this photograph it's a good example from the
new pilings uh it would be uh 30 about 30 or more feet 30 feet or more to the the neighbor's closest structure which would be that boat lift in the photo. >> That's the only boat they have is the boat lift >> next door. >> Yeah. Uh, no. They have a they have a
much larger they have two slips um next door, two boat lifts, a floating dock you can see in the photo. Um, so they have two mooring slips next door and uh that's what we're requesting to put it this way. >> But they're not docking a boat on the side toward your house. Correct.
>> No. Uh the the the closest uh spot they more a boat next door would be on that lift you can see in that picture. and we'll have the opportunity to hear from neighbors I believe as well. >> Um if yeah if you have any other questions I think >> you did explore though other designs.
Sorry, >> you did explore other designs that would meet >> really. There's only there's only one other design which would be uh turn the boat parallel and put it out to sea further which like Brandon said that's also a double variance uh from a length
perspective. And that's the uh at our property you can see the boat he already has on the boat lift. That slip still needs to be usable for that boat to get on and off that boat lift. So really the north right side of that dock is the
only position to put a or add a add a slip. >> Okay. So the north right side >> Yep. >> Um I see it does have a area that's protruding out from the actual 4 foot walk out >> the dock. Yep.
>> So I guess the al alternative is to lose that walk out space so that you could actually bring it in tighter to the 4 foot dock. >> Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. Okay. So, that is a potential solution.
>> Yeah, that would be a potential more costly and then loss of square footage of the dock >> on the end of that dock. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> But it then doesn't protrude into the >> setback. >> Correct. >> Uh, no. Correct. >> Okay.
And just to make it clear, um, so everyone's on the same page, any, in this case, in this particular case, any objections that have came through, um, on all every property from someone that placed an objection, they're uh,
all double variant situations that they have behind their home. They've all received signatures from neighbors uh, to build structures behind their houses. Um, and so we're asking for nothing other than res other residents have done.
>> Any additional questions for the applicant at this time? >> Does Yeah, I guess if that's specific if you have very specifics yourself about the fact that everyone else has got the 10. >> Yes. Any anyone that's >> 10 and a half foot setbacks from their
neighbors areas. Uh the number might not be correct because the lot size could be different, but each uh neighbor has had a signature to build their dock or their slip, >> right? Like this one had that same variance to be at the 40 and a half
feet, right? That's also requiring. Okay. >> Correct. Um >> Okay. Another example real quick is the overall footprint of of the structure which we would call the envelope which would be the total width from maximum
side from structure to structure in this case would be the boat lift that's on the left side of the dock over to the proposed tie poles that we are um proposing. Um the overall width is within 2 ft of of most of the other
structures that are in that body of water too. Uh so it's pretty it's pretty consistent with neighboring properties widths. A and also um our our property subject property has
a much shorter distance out to sea than neighboring properties as well. So it it has a much smaller footprint than almost every dock in that body of water. >> Do you have an aerial view at all showing the neighbor and >> um
>> in your house? >> This one's this one's >> that one shows. >> Yeah, let's I'll show them this one first. That's a little more Do you mind? and uh >> get the overhead >> overhead.
So um this you can see um our subject property the sailboat which is in the bottom of the frame. Um and then you can see the size of the structure to the north which is the neighbor and you can
just you can see the size difference and the length of how much further it's out into the canal there. >> Are you number nine here? Uh, no. Number nine is the neighboring property. I'm >> They're kind of falling off. Yeah, they're at the very edge. >> There we go.
>> This one's a little more zoomed out, but it does show um all the properties. So, um you can see 89 the size of their footprint or their envelope. Then moving down to the south would be our subject
property where you see the sailboat. Um, and then if even if you move further south um and wrap around the corner, you can see the the length and the and the widths of those structures. So, like I said, it's it's we're not asking for anything even nearly as large or as big
as some of the neighboring properties. >> Thank you. Any other >> You said you've had this mood for two years >> about that. >> Yes. >> I know the neighbors complained about it then. Was that a >> No one has said a word, >> so it's not a visual issue.
>> The first time I saw anything was a comment on this report. >> Has there been condition changes that make the current situation not something you can continue to sustain?
>> I wouldn't say there I have no basis to say change in any of the conditions. I think they're they're similar. >> Yeah. Okay. So, for the last two years, it's been okay. >> No, it hasn't. I wouldn't say it's okay. >> It hasn't. I'm sorry. No, it hasn't. >> Well, I was gonna say, too,
>> the lines like through when there's a storm, >> we So, it's my daughter. So, we're up all night long like constantly replacing the lines because it will take out our neighbors dock like it'll either go to the seaw wall or go into their dock or something. So, and the lines are
constantly getting cut and like being It's just a lot more. >> Oh, you're going to need to speak at the mic and you'll have to give us >> You've been sworn in. >> Okay, that's okay. >> Oh, and so to answer your question about
time, uh, the first neighbor, so the left neighbor that has signed the variance, uh, signed it in October of 2024. So, it has not been okay for two years. We've been trying to come to a solution to fix the problem and so
that's why we're here. So this has been ongoing for quite some time. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> And what was the complaint then? >> No, there was no complaint. It was just that when we started this process and we were able to obtain one neighbor's signature was in October of 2024 and
then once we didn't get the other that's when >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. public comment. >> I think is Dan Kierney. >> Hi. >> Thank you all very much for having me. I
appreciate it. My name is Dan Kernney. I live at 2012 Westfina Delmare Boulevard. I'm the neighbor to the north who apparently has refused to sign documents that he's never seen. prior to pulling off the document online for the October
of 24 signature that we're referring letter of no obligation that actually has someone else's signature on it and a notary where I was supposed to sign. I have never seen this document before before pulling it off of this website
and I have it has someone else's signature on it. I have no idea who it is. Um I we are disputing this because there clearly are other alternatives here. When we purchased our house in 2014, I believe um we had significant
dock changes we needed to make to our dock to accommodate the boat slip and the jet ski lift that we wanted. It only had one slip for a boat or I'm sorry for a jet ski. No boat. We wanted to add a boat slip. So prior to purchasing a boat, we went through all of the regulations. We went through all of the
permitting. It took it took us eight months to accommodate that. We spent about $20,000 redoing our dock and then we went and purchased a boat that would fit the dock so it wouldn't disrupt our neighbors. When our neighbors knew what we were doing with our dock, they were happy to sign off on the variance
request that we had because it was so minimal and had no impact. This is one where they are correct. It has been tied up for two years. And I thank God that the multiple storms that we've had over the course of the last few years haven't gotten the boat loose and run into our dock or to the marina or anything else.
Um, so I appreciate that for how well you've tied it off. It's been great. I'm not opposed to having this secured properly. I want it be to be done in a way that won't impact my property value and the use of my dock down the road. I eliminated significant square footage from my dock when I submitted the
request to add on a vote slip. I had to completely re reconfigure the end of the dock and I lost an entire section of floating dock because I wanted to do it correctly. I did. I'm not sure that we're doing it that way this time. It's been two years and apparently I was asked two years to go assign it to sign
a document that I've never seen that now I see off of your website that has someone else's signature on it that's been ver um notorized. I'm concerned about that. Um we presented three different options of deck plans that may work. We submitted those to Kristen and
um Brandon. Thank you guys very much for all your emails. We really appreciate it. I'm not sure if they're all going to work. I'm not an expert. I'm not an attorney and I'm not a boat contractor. I'm just trying to present some logical solutions here that would not impact my dock down the road should I choose to put a boat on the other side where the
where the jet ski is right now because having that slip on there on that side of the property would impact my ability to have a boat put there. Should I choose to sell my property down the line and somebody wants to put another boat slip there, it's going to impact their ability to do that because they're going to have these two things protruding from
the side of their dock that are impacting our ability to get a boat in and out. So again, I don't know if that's even feasible. I haven't taken out a tape measure, but there clearly are other alternatives. My own dock, as pictured in it's not on there anymore. Um the side that is closest to our
neighbors is a jet ski lift. Um the other side um is the boat lift and uh the boat lift doesn't come anywhere near our other property our neighbors property line. The jet ski doesn't come anywhere near sorry our south south
neighbors property line. Um the prior to me purchasing the home, we looked up permitting and we saw that the people who owned the home before we did before we owned it had two posts installed at the end of the dock into the waterway um to po to put a sailboat there.
My time is up. >> Apparently the sailboat didn't last um because unfortunately the gentleman who purchased the property and put the sailboat there passed away during the construction. So, it seems as though there is there is a logical appropriately permitted option of putting a boat at the end of it as
evidenced by four neighbors on our on the island of Venina that we live on. That's it. I'll stop right now. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Is that it? All right. We'll close open comment and open for board discussion.
>> Uh, yes. Um, there are just a I appreciate the comments and I I I copy of it and I put it in in their door. Um, and never heard anything back. >> But just to confirm the the document
with the signatures, it's signature for the neighbor to your south. Then that's the signature that's on there. That is not the individual. >> I wasn't representing that. It was his signature. I'm representing that. I never received your signature. >> Okay. I just Thank you for clarifying. >> So I there's nothing nefarious. Yeah.
I'm a licensed CPA. Ethics are very important to me. Um one other thing I want to I'd like to Can we see this? I'd like to dispute one aspect of this. So uh our property is the one to the south where you can't see it. It's
number 10. And that distance between the sailboat and that jet ski lift is 35 ft. If you look up north from 9 to 10, his boat lift to the property
a little further north is only 24 ft. So he's already living with a 24 foot difference. And this is where we've asked the contractor and he said, "This is plenty of room. we want to suggest something that wouldn't have enough room. So that's um those are the couple
of additional points I just wanted to make and I thank you for your consideration. >> Um could we get testimony from Edge? Um additionally, please >> if you could just provide your expert opinion on the the um distance between the proposed sailboat and the
neighboring property and the ability to navigate a boat safely. >> Yeah. So um uh that's you know typically most in most property scenarios and almost all of them we can't design a structure or a
slip or a lift where it's required to go over the property line or the repairing line out into the water to use the slip. So, what we're proposing would in no way, shape, or form affect um any neighbors ability to use their slips. Um
just like it's not going to affect uh um our proposed or at our location's ability to use the new slip. Uh it would no one would ever be ever be within about 20 ft of the property line or I'm
sorry, in this at our subject property, we're going to be about 10 off. the boat would never be closer than 12 feet from the line. Um, and if I may, if I could get overhead, one more overhead shot. Um, well, you know, when we're talking about space, it it might be hard to see,
but that's the right setback line for the neighboring property. Um, which it's hard to see, but that says 13 ft. Um, and so what we're requesting, which would be on this side of the dock, that's where our our 10 and 1/2t
setback's going to be. So, this is just an example how the neighboring property structure is is within uh 13 feet of his northern property line. And yes, we are a little less because we're inheriting the location of the dock that's already
there, but 10 and a half to 13 is pretty close in similarity. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Reverting back to board discussion. I'm having a hard time understanding why it would be difficult to navigate a jet ski into that dock. It's
>> not the jet ski, it's the idea of potentially other ship boats coming in. That is a that's a really unusual part of water because of the traffic going to those two restaurants and the marina right across. So, you've got limited room to get in and um it the jet ski is
not really the issue. The issue is like a sailboat or any other kind of motorboat. >> Well, I think it is a question of a hardship. I mean, in the end, I I appreciate needing to stabilize a >> sales
>> sales. Yeah. Um, having said that, I mean, I think we know that there are solutions. They're just going to be more costly and would cause your cause the existing dock to have to be uh reduced in
its width uh in order to accommodated on the current property line. Um I think it's really smart to if you have two boats of those magnitudes that you want to do that with this sailboat. Um, I just see that there are solutions that don't
impact neighboring property lines and that's I guess where I look at this and think I feel for this situation. But I think if this is the desire to have the sailboat mored here that there would be
a different structure for the current dock. But I think then you're asking the property owner to take on what's maybe unnecessary hardship from a construction perspective when we have testimony that as is not going to negatively impact neighbors ability to use their property.
>> It's unnecessary for I mean I could say it's unnecessary to have the second boat come in. I know that they took ownership in 2019 and they've had this new sailboat for the last two years. So what's unnecessary?
Well, if I may, and I had wrote down spring line because they I could see that it was a mored with a spring line. You have to have that with a sailboat. And what's happened over the last couple years, we've got red, white, and booze. And we have um what's the
>> the warfar the warf they've added so many slips. >> Yep. >> And there those boats are coming in and turning around and causing a wake. I I go under that bridge all the time. And I I I I understand, but >> it's gotten significantly worse. There's >> it has and we don't even know what's
going to happen with the the marina there because they've got a lot they have a lot of work to do on that. >> So, like I said, I am not I'm not making a case that the tide poles aren't critical. I absolutely believe that's the case. I think what I'm just looking
at is the fact that you the ownership of the property was six so almost I don't know six plus years ago and in the last two years um we've tried to moore a sailboat and you recognize that it's not
going to be a real stable place for the success of that and now it smart to add the additional tide poles. how can you do it within the current confines of the property? Um, there are
solutions and I appreciate that it's not ideal, but I do think that there are solutions within the confines of the current property. I I completely get where you're coming from. I also think that we the majority of docks along our waterways have exceptions that are made
and usually we don't see them because neighbors are able to come together and it's unfortunate when we have to be in this consideration because not everybody's going to be happy. That's just the nature of what we're you know faced with. Um I think their dock is minimal in size compared to you know what we see up and down the water. they
had a massive dock already and then you know that might I might feel differently >> different >> but I don't feel like they are asking for an um a large footprint for a dock and a sailboat um relatively >> they said they're not going to extend the dock at all I think it's reasonable
to allow them to have these >> places to tie up with the with the spring I think that makes sense >> would you like to make a motion >> oh not yet >> I'll make a motion to approve case number 25141
based off the testimony heard today and the validated um unnecessary undue hardship. >> Second roll call, please. >> No. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Do we have cases on the docket for next one? At this time we do have some under review but I do not have any but that have been deemed complete at this time. So there is a chance you may
>> have a break. >> Have a break maybe. >> Any um other items for discussion? >> No ma'am. >> Meeting adjourned. >> Thank you.