property. So even though it maintains a slightly greater than a one foot setback from the fence while it is actually fully on the on the neighbor's property to the south. Um so it's it visually it appears to be set back a little bit further from the property line than it actually is. This is a practical difficulty variance.
There are four criteria. Staff is requesting applicant testimony as to how this occurred. Um if the additional foot of encroachment was required to either meet the Florida building code or some other site constraint or if it was simply a mistake during uh during construction of the
patio. So staff finds that the if the applicant adequately justifies criteria three, which is where that uh question shared on the prior slide originated from by providing a basis for why the additional foot encroachment is necessary. Staff finds that the applicant has adequately
supported their case. They have engineered this deck patio to allow percolation into it from storm water due to the presence of a solid wall in the southern sideyard that mitigates deflection from swailed runoff toward the neighboring property. So storm water unlike a typical pool patio, especially
a concrete patio, um actually falls within the deck and it's it's uh driven out from there. So we don't expect this additional 1 foot of encroachment to have any significant impact from a storm water perspective on the neighbor's property. We do uh request three conditions be included in this approval
should it be granted. The first is that the conditions of the authorized variance from early 2024 remain in effect. These largely pertain to an elevated deck and walk out that was provided at the rear of the structure, but those would remain in effect as this is an amendment to that variance.
New conditions, any portion of the patio within the required 5ft southern sideyard setback shall remain as open wood decking or another permeable system that directs all runoff away from the neighboring property. These variances do run with the land. So if this were to be reconstructed, we would want to make sure that it remains a permeable system
as it has been developed today. And should the subject property or deck redevelop subsequent to the southern walls removal, there is a fence wall on the southern side, the owner should grade or use other mechanisms such as retaining walls to ensure that swailed storm water is not deflected to the neighbor's property. Again, just working
with the existing conditions to ensure that in the future there is not any adverse effect to the neighbor's property from this encroachment. We have received a letter of support from the affected neighbor to the south um they have supported this request and um based
on that should the board move to approve this case we ask that you do so with the three recommended staff conditions. You can also deny the case if you find that the applicant has not provided competent and substantial evidence to support their case specifically criteria three which was addressed by staff or you can
motion to continue this case to a future date pending submittal of additional information if the board finds that necessary to take action. We do have the agent for the case present. I believe they have a presentation but I'm happy to take any questions if you have any for me at this time. >> Just one quick one Brandon out of
curiosity. Do you know? So I understand that southern fence is not is actually past the property line. Do you know roughly what the dimensions are if that were the setback? Like does that get them closer to the 2 ft? >> It's shown in the survey. I believe it's it's still a slight encroachment,
but it's about a foot and a quarter to a foot and a half from the outside edge of the fence based on what's shown. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for Brandon? >> If the applicant or the applicant's agent would like to please share your case. Um, Madame Chair, um, is it
possible to go ahead and get any exparte communications on the record and also if there's any conflict of interest, that way the applicant can address it. >> Absolutely. Members, >> none >> site visit is all. >> No. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Madam
Chair. Brian, 625 Core Street here on behalf of the applicant, the property owners, Gar and Elise Lipincot, 2909 Sunset Way. Mr. Lipenot is here as well as our general contractor Carmine Pichy who can answer any uh technical questions you might have. I actually have a picture from this morning that I
think might very clearly demonstrate the reason that this extra foot was necessitated on a very small portion of this deck and it was to accommodate an existing stairwell and planter system. Um so I don't know if I can show this on the overhead this image if that will
come up. Okay, let me scoot it that way >> and then zoom in a little bit. So you'll see here, this is the fence that is on the Heler's uh Dr. Bridget and Dr. Elliot Heler's property line. Uh and it is 18 in from that stairwell. That stairwell was existing in terms of the
footprint. It's a new stairwell, but we built it in the exact footprint of an of a previous stairwell. Um and so that encroachment has always been there in terms of the width at that portion of the setback. So this does not run the entire portion of the deck. It only runs
for the stairwell. And of course, my phone just messed up. Um, let me pull that back up real quick. You'll also see that as staff noted, these lots were platted uh back in the 1920s as very very uh uh narrow lots. Uh their width
is is narrow and their depth is long. And the Helers have that same exact layout. And you can see the Helers have a completely uh imperous elevated deck that goes right up to the property line. So there's a zero setback. The helers were also approved and I represented
them for a variance a few years ago for a trellis that is between one uh 1.8 uh 1 ft I'm sorry 1 foot 8 in set back from the lip and cuts fence which runs a longer width. So this is typical of the
development pattern out there. But the practical difficulty is that when we were e excavating this area for the steps we realized that there's a planter on both sides. There's a planter on the right side, you can see, and then there's a planter system that runs down the left side of the deck. And there's more pictures in here in the PowerPoint
that I can show that will better demonstrate that. We can flip to the PowerPoint now if that's all right. Um, and the one of the conditions for this approval was that the entire deck be permeable so that everything percolates. And we didn't want to damage uh the existing planters and irrigation system.
um and and that we felt like that was more important than um than maintaining strictly that two-foot setback. So you'll see here again, this is the aerial um Heler's house, Dr. Bridget and Dr. Elliot Heler to the south, Mr. and Mrs. Lipincot there uh in the red. Very
similar development pattern, a very close setbacks, particularly in the rear of the properties where you're looking at the pools uh for those three lots. This is a less good image of what I just showed you, which is why we tried to get a better image to show the planter on the lefthand side as well as the planter
on the right hand side. Uh, and the fact that this is for an existing stairwell. Uh, and you can see what we're looking at is the very bottom of the screen. Um, if you look at the red hatch, you'll see that the majority of that red hatched
area running uh east to west is or left to right is two-foot setback. The only portion that's not is that portion for the stairwell. Again, this is uh showing that portion, the only portion that's encroaching into the previously approved twoft setback
and and that is uh about less than 10 ft. Um it is 18 inches from the fence. So, it's about one and a half ft from the fence. This is another image uh showing uh the closeness and the elevated deck um that is on the adjacent property. So we felt like in keeping
with the spirit of the approval which was to protect the permeability percolation and the irrigation and the existing planter system that uh it was best not to disturb those and to keep the existing encroachment for the stairwell where it was where we had
intended to move it back. Uh, and so it's really not creating any kind of new encroachment that didn't previously exist and it's protecting uh the the um permeability and the storm water uh retention and and all the things that the staff is concerned about uh is
actually being served better served by uh this proposal than by the last proposal. Well, happy to answer any questions you have and again Mr. Peach's here to answer those questions as is Mr. Libincott. >> Well, is it my am I correct that they got a variance in 2024? >> Yes, sir.
And that was two years ago. >> So it's just >> Was that before the hurricanes or >> That was before the hurricanes, right? Yeah, that was before the hurricanes. >> The hurricanes have anything to do with this at all? >> I don't think so.
>> No, it's not. It wasn't caused by the hurricanes. It really was once uh Mr. Mr. Pitchy got out and started constructing and excavating that area. He realized that if he moved that that stairwell footer over another foot, it would destroy the planter on the lefthand side, which would impact the
entire planting system that runs down that portion of the property. And again, he can explain that in more detail if you'd like him to, >> but it was >> The only thing that concerns me is you're asking for a variance from a variance, >> right? We're just basically it's as built, as constructed. was slightly
slightly more encroaching than the approval. Um and and that that is correct, but that was done because we're keeping that existing stairwell feature. So, it's not encroaching any further than the prior stairwell if that helps. It's not asking for any additional encroachment than what had historically
been there. >> I think just to um clarify his point, it's always better when we don't have an after the fact situation, right? Like I I was here with for the prior variance. I understand the situation. And I really respect the fact that you have your neighbors support and that makes our job a lot easier when the person this is
impacting is supportive of of the construction project. But I would just ask in the future if you can, you know, do other construction projects on the beach. If you recognize that this is going to be an issue before proceeding with the construction, please come and talk to us first because that makes our job a lot easier than to be um putting
out a signal that we're, you know, going to be giving forgiveness for something that's already done that wasn't approved in the first place. >> Yes, madam chair. Permission is always better than forgiveness that >> any other questions for the applicant. >> No, I think that was covered. >> No. Thank you. >> Very good.
>> Thank you. >> At this time, if there's anybody else here that would like to speak on behalf or in opposition of this case, we'd love to hear your comments. Hearing none, we'll close public comment and open for board discussion. I've kind of stated my my thoughts, but open to
everybody else's. >> Yeah, I I agree. I I can see why with the uh previous stairwell why it was done. I same I share the same concerns you um as far as a variance and variance but it makes it makes sense. I think he's
satisfied as far as I'm concerned he's demonstrated uh what the staff's requiring. So um yeah I don't have any other questions >> I was agree >> yeah that helps as well. Yeah,
>> I think we should be notified though. I agree with you 100%. Because that was my biggest issue was >> I was I was sitting here on that case. So, we gave them a variance and then they didn't adhere to it, it seemed like, but for what 1t 8 in of area, I
think we're okay. I think the the um conditions suggested by staff are incredibly important as to ensure that the variance that was previously um provided >> should we consider that um if we grant these variances is for this owner and I
understand that the next owner of the house will understand that that's the situation but do we have >> it goes with the land so there's not um the variance stays with the land as opposed to an individual property owner. Okay. Are we in a a position to ascertain a
motion? >> Yeah, I'll get my feet wet. >> Um, I'm I move to uh approve case number 26059 uh with the conditions that the staff has set forth, the three conditions. >> I second that.
So, the staff um has a draft order in your packet and um based on their testimony and the documents that you have in your record, it appears that um that there was satisfactory evidence for three of the four criteria. The last
criteria um staff recommended that you hear the testimony of the applicant and that criteria is whether the difficulty can be obliviated by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a variance and it sounds like based on your conversation your
discussion that um that that criteria would be satisfied. That's correct. >> Agreed. >> Agreed. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Small. >> Yes. Member Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Core, >> yes. >> Member Kunzer, >> yes.
>> Chair Chase, yes. Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to our second case for this afternoon. Case number 26071. >> Okay. This is also a practical difficulty variance request for a deck. This is case number 26071.
Property address of 2702 Passeril Way. Jared and Gerard Aangelo request to reconstruct an existing wood deck of approximately 16 by 22 feet that encroaches to the southern side property line where a setback of 5T is required. This is made pursuant to land
development code section 6.13 C2C. The C as opposed to the B under the prior cases because this deck is not elevated more than two feet. You can see here an aerial of the property. It's located between 27th and 28th avenues along Pasil Way on the
western side. Property has a zoning of RU2 residential district. It's also within the Pasil Overlay district. So the applicant is requesting a variance from the 10% of the lot with
sideyard setback standard for a deck. Um that is 5T for this property. a property width of 50 ft. That is required for open decks located within the sideyard of a residential property pursuant to section 6.13 C2C. The applicant's requesting to
reconstruct an existing deck, which they stated has been in place since at least the 1980s in its same footprint. So, you can see the district has a requirement of a 5-ft sideyard setback. The existing deck has an setback of approximately half a foot. This originally came in as
a request for a lot line setback. So a zero foot setback. However, we have spoken with the applicant um based on the measurement estimated by staff for a footprint replacement. Uh they are looking at a side setback of 0.5 ft. So a slightly greater offset from the
property line than what had been made under the original application. So it would be a footprint replacement at about a half foot set back from the southern side property line. You can see that here uh the deck proposed for replacement. There is a wood fence that shadows the property
line. It should be a little bit more evident on the staff photos that there is a slight setback. And it's a little bit difficult to make out on the slide here, but the side of the deck has set back approximately 6 feet on the western side uh from that property line. There
is a a measurement shown by the surveyor for that setback. Here's some photographs of the site showing the signposting from Pascal Way, the front of the home. This is a locally designated historic residence. It is also considered a contributing structure
under the Pastor Grail overlay or sorry, Pasil Historic District. U because this deck is an accessory feature, it does not affect the historic status of the home. You can see here looking toward the south the neighbor's property, the existing deck.
It was noted by staff to be in fairly dilapidated condition. There were depressed areas of the deck. Um it was clearly in need of replacement and speaking with the homeowner. Um the deck was eventually going to be in need of replacement. However, the 2024 storms did accelerate the uh the damage to the
deck which you can see here up against the fence line as well as the the slight halfoot offset from the existing wood fence that straddles the property lines. There are four standards associated with a practical difficulty variance. Staff finds that the applicant has reasonably
supported all four criteria. This is a footprint replacement that was accelerated by a storm outside of the applicant's control. Um the request that they are making and the layout and requests that they are making is is reasonable. The only testimony that we ask for from the applicant is their
chosen material for the deck. We understand that they're going to be using a composite material typically that is not susceptible to humidity expansion like wood is. Um, but we want to make sure that the deck layout is going to be accounting for any kind of thermal expansion. We want to make sure that water can continue to percolate
through the deck instead of runoff to the neighbor's property with this replacement. So, with that, we do find that the request is reasonable. It meets the criteria for issuance of a practical difficulty variance. We're not asking for any additional support for any of the four criteria. They are seeking to remediate a hardship caused in part by
storm damage and replace an existing deck in its same footprint. The scale of the deck is modest. We do feel that requiring the deck to meet the five foot sideyard setback would be excessive. It would significantly affect the usability of the deck and that it's reasonable given the additional cost and potential for failure of the wood deck and the
risk associated with doing so in simply restoring the deck and its existing footprint with the wood material. Should this request be approved, stack staff recommends the following conditions. The first is that deck board shall be spaced to maintain at least an 1/8 inch gap
when accounting for thermal expansion. As I mentioned, we don't expect there to be any kind of thermal expansion from the composite material that they're being used that they're using to reconstruct this deck. Any outer trim boards used shall be oriented to direct rain water inward to the deck or away
from neighboring property. surface below the deck shall be permeable or if not it shall be graded to allow water to percolate into the subject property instead of running off to the neighbor's property. We don't expect any kind of challenge or issue with that. We just want to make sure that again with this variance running with the land, this is
something that'll be maintained into the future. And then for any new construction, we ask that the applicant submit a final asbuilt survey demonstrating that the deck will be replaced in its same footprint. and it means maintains that half foot offset from the property line on the south
side. We did receive one letter of support for this request. It was not made by the immediately abuing neighbor, but we did not receive any correspondence from the neighbor to the direct south. So with that, your action options are on the screen. We do have the property owners present and I'm
happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Brandon. Any questions from board? >> Can Can you go back uh and show uh the picture of the house with the yellow sign out in front again? I'm trying to get a I go. Yeah. Nope. Nope. There. Can you point to where we're talking about here?
>> It's on the left side. It's You can see the wood fence there on the very far left. >> Wood fence. I don't see any deck at all. >> So, the deck is set in the in the backyard. It's not visible from this photo. This Let me see here. Let me get a better photo. This is looking toward the south from probably the back third of the
residence. >> So which if I'm looking at that right now, which way is um Pasco Way >> to the left. So beyond beyond the deck, if you follow the fence line out to the left, that would be the fence that you can see in this photo on the left hand side.
>> Now I see. I've driven by that several times trying to see where it was and I couldn't see it. >> It's a low deck. It's hard to see unless you're standing right at the sidewalk. that that further um emphasizes the you know it's not having a huge visual impact. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I know that's but I just I was just curious because I kept
going back. Where is it? >> Any other questions for Brandon? >> Yeah, Brandon, real quick. I I just want to be clear and I apologize. Are you concerned about the them using composite? Is that what you were saying? I just >> So they they are using composite and the the owners or present can speak to this, but as this runs with the land, if they were to replace in the future, we want
to make sure that it's an open slatted surface so that water can percolate through. >> But you don't have any concerns with composite? No, no, no, not at all. >> I don't think so. >> Anything else for Brandon? >> Thank you, Brandon. >> If the applicant would please come forward and share your case with us,
>> Madam Chair, any exparte or conflicts? >> Hi, this is Sharon Iangelo. One moment. Sorry. >> I No, we're done. Nope. >> Just a drive by visit. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> I'm sorry. >> Sharon Angelo to pass a girl way.
Perfect. >> Don't tip it over. Just pull it down. >> Um, >> we're just trying to get the deck replaced as is. I mean, as Brandon said, it was in need of repair before the hurricanes. The hurricanes just took the
rest of it. >> And no, you cannot see it from the street, which is Yeah. And it's been there for since the early 80s. The house itself has been there in my family since almost a hundred years. So it's all
we're asking. We're not asking for any more any, you know, but taking the five feet away definitely would impact the size and functionability of the deck. It's not that big to begin with. So you take it away and then it's like what's the point?
Um I'm welcome, you know, I'm happy to answer any questions you have. I don't know exactly what you're looking for. Do you have any concerns with the two conditions shared by staff? In terms >> The only concern that I have right now is the fact that you're asking for yet another survey. We just provided one
about two months ago and we're not going to be adding anything. We're just replacing asis. So I guess my concern is why should we go through the expense of yet another survey when we're not changing anything? >> Understood. Kristen, are there any other ways to get the dimensions of the final
deck that wouldn't cause a financial burden on the homeowners? >> Um, not that I'm aware of. The reason that we do ask for the asbuilt survey is just to again clarify that what was approved was what was constructed. Y >> um being that they have the base layer, if it's a recent survey, they could
probably just come out and just reconfirm that setback. It wouldn't be a whole another expense. >> Okay. Would a notice from the the deck builder suffice as that we did build this to what the specifications were?
The survey is a licensed surveyor that's attesting to that setback. So that is a formal. >> All right. Um I don't have an answer from the surveyor. I reached out to find out exactly what the financial impact is to redo it. I guess I misunderstood
um in u my correspondence with with Brandon about having a new survey. So I thought having it done prior to submitting the package was the appropriate thing to do. I didn't realize that I could have relied on my previous survey and then incurred the
expense of a of a new boundary survey afterwards. And that's why Sharon was kind of pushing back gently as whether there was another way to to verify that. But I've reached out to the surveyor um and I haven't heard back as to you know
what it what it involved to do to verify that. And then um in addition to that the we're looking at replacing the the fence and talking to fence builders they recommended the deck needed to be done
first. So, I would want to understand um I I believe we have a period of time to have the survey resubmitted of some form. Um whether that's going to whether we're allowed to do that
uh with the deck replacement because I I don't want to go a third time to find out now you've done the fence and I didn't realize the um till Brandon pointed it out the fence was actually set back from the property line. So I had actually asked for more setback
relief than was necessary. So I think that's uh what I wanted to clarify on on that subject beyond what Sharon had uh mentioned. And then for condition two um the deck builder that looks like we're probably going to
select to do the work. I reached out to um their company and they said regarding the the the eighth inch gap on the on the boards. He says that they adhere to the um standard in the industry which is 316
which is 16th of an inch greater than than 1/8 of an inch. So we should meet the uh the gap requirement based on just their their standard construction. Yeah. Building. >> Thank you. And I um I hear your concerns
financially. We're not looking to put any additional financial burden on you or your family. We do need to make sure that legally we have the documentation that what has been approved has been done. Um and I trust that staff will work with you to make sure that's done in the you know most um >> yeah conservative way possible.
>> Yeah. >> I just want to have a question on that. >> Yeah. that in regards to that, is it not possible to, you know, take this current survey and they're going to have to mark it anyway and stake it out? And can't you leave those markers in place to demonstrate that the ASB built does meet
that requirement? Because it does seem kind of redundant to have to do a second survey. >> I'm not sure if I follow. If the survey has already been completed, there's probably no markers and usually they're at the boundary corners. Um,
I'm not sure if if staff is as savvy as >> No, the deck deck builder has to go by that survey. He has to put some sort of markers or indication, you know, of exact geometry of what he's building. And if that's tied to the survey, I wouldn't expect you to have to do a
second survey to prove that. You already have the initial survey. The reason for the asbuilt survey is just to attest to the fact that like we had in our previous case, we caught it on the asbuilt survey. That is where we caught that the construction was not
completed to as what was approved and that that is the reason staff does request that is just to assure the board that your approval that that's what you're constructing to. I I don't know what the financial is. I know that the base has been completed. Um I know that
the applicant is asking for relief for something. Um so I that's just in better terms just that verification. >> Yep. Understood. >> Would it make sense to CO this case until
>> No, I think they want to move forward. I think >> Well, I know they want to. I just it's because of that >> and I think the sentiment based off staff staff's recommendation and what I'm hearing from the board is you know very supportive of what you're looking to do um and in that it's you know getting a variance requested and I think that's probably more important to you
that get that five feet then potentially you know a slightly additional expense on the survey but know that we're hoping that you can work with your surveying company to you know get that to be as conservative as possible. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> No. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Is there anyone else here today on behalf or in opposition to this case that would like to share their comments with the board? >> Hearing none. We'll close public comment open for board discussion. >> I don't see any issues at all especially
on the 1/8 gap because 316. So it says at least 18. So they're covered there. So >> just another example of folks continuing to rebuild after the storm and trying to get their house back to the way it was. That's We have so much of that. >> Yep. >> Do we have a a motion?
>> Yeah. I move that we approve case number 26071 with staff conditions. >> I second. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Schmidt, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Core, >> yes. >> Member Kzer,
>> yes. >> Member Small, >> yes. >> Sher Trace, yes. >> Motion carries. Moving on to case number 25147, 3535 Bella Vista Drive. >> Good afternoon, Madam Chair, board members. Gil Martinez, senior planner
community development. The case before you today is an unnecessary and undue hardship variance case number 25147. The applicant Martha D. Bolton, legal representative for Mark and Lynn Brick, request to allow an
existing unpermitted roofed accessory structure approximately 344 341 square feet in area to remain and be reconfigured to include an enclosed storage area and open outdoor living area with bar. The structure is proposed
to remain with a rear yard setback of 11 feet where 20 feet is required and a right rear sight set back of 3.3 ft where 6.7 is required per LDC section 8.7B 3 and 4
the subject property and the accessory structure associated with it my understanding was constructed back in 2023 there was a stop work order placed on it. So there is a code enforcement case that is along with this which has been a part of your backup. Um
the requests are that are before you is they're requiring a sideyard setback of 6.7 ft which is 10% of the lot width to um allow for a 3.3 ft which provide for a 3.4 for encroachment on the rear on
the side yard setback. On the rear setback, which requires 20 ft, they are requesting an 11t setback, which would give a 9- FFT encroachment for their rear yard setback.
Here's an image of their survey. This shows the location of the air variances. To the top of the page, you see the 3.3 feet sideyard setback, the proposed 11 ft to the lower left hand side of the page.
This is a proposed floor plan photograph of Our public hearing sign the current structure of the principal home image of the home. This is the structure in question. As you can see, there is currently a wall
between those two windows. The applicant is proposing knocking down the the middle of that wall and making it a knee wall and an open air storage area. These are some existing interior images. This is the area of the structure where
a storage area is proposed. This is currently enclosed, but this would be the outdoor living area. Um, as you can see in in as it's circled, you know, the existing wall would be replaced with the knee-le wall.
And this is a view of the bar area facing the current structure. This is a rendering of what would is being proposed under undue hardship variance standards. There are eight criteria that need to be
considered by the board. Staff has requested that the applicant prepare some testimony in reference to regarding where the location or reduction of the structure is not feasible. The applicant should provide traditional testimony regarding the original construction timeline and permitting
history to the board. The applicant should also provide an update regarding the present status of the code enforcement proceedings and any remaining compliance actions. The applicant should provide an idea of the type of materials equipped or equipment intended for storage area. And the
applicant should address the removal of plumbing, bathroom fixtures, interior door, and existing wall in the areas planned as outdoor living area as depicted in the floor plans. Should the board um approve this um
application, staff recommends five conditions. One is that the enclosed area shall be constructed and maintained as non-habitable storage space and shall not be converted into living area. Two, air conditioning and other permanent climate control systems shall not be
installed within the storage area. Three, the proposed wall enclosed enclosing the door living area shall be modified to a knee wall consistent with the front elevation as depicted in your staff report figure seven. Number four, the applicant shall obtain
all required building permits consistent with the approved plans and conditions of approval. And five, that prior to the issuance of a final inspection of approval, planning and zoning staff shall conduct a site inspection to verify compliance with the approved
plans and all conditions of approval. Before you are the options to approve, approve with conditions. um motion to deny with or without prejudice or a motion to continue the applicant's representatives here as well as the property owners. So if you have
any questions for me, I'll be glad to take them. If not, I'll turn it over to the applicant at this point. >> Questions for staff at this point? >> I don't know. Any letters from either neighbors? Would that be the question for him or not? >> No, we have not received any letters of support or against support.
>> Any additional questions for staff? Um, >> well, >> go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Well, I So, was this built without a permit? Is that what >> correct? >> Yes. >> That's troubling.
>> The current structure was built without a permit. They're under um there's a a >> stop work order by code enforcement. There is a code enforcement proceeding. >> Address the status for us. >> Okay. Well, let's hear from them. Real quick though, was there um
>> I'm curious. Did I read I apologize, but did I read Are there fines associated with this? >> Excuse me. >> Are there fines associated with this on a daily basis? Did I read something? >> Um it is currently going through a code enforcement procedures. The fines have not been imposed as of yet, but they they may be if this isn't settled.
>> If I may, I can comment on that. I did speak with the code enforcement officer in charge of the case, and they are recommending that administrative fees be paid at at a minimum. Um there is no daily reoccurring fine and that is a total of $330.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. We'll hear from the applicant at this time. >> Absolutely. >> And prior to the applicant sharing their case, if we could um disclose any export, please. >> Just a driveby for me. >> None. >> None for me. >> No.
>> Thank you. You could share your name and address for the record. >> Good afternoon. Martha Bolton of 4055 Central Avenue. I'm representing uh the Broadicks and they're >> Move the mic over so we can hear you.
It's >> Can you hear me better? >> Uh the Broadicks are here present as well as one of the neighbors. I do have two neighbor letters. However, they were not sent uh to Mr. Martinez, but I do have them here today. and one of the
neighbors present to testify if needed. >> And I'm assuming those letters are in support of >> Yes, they are. No objection to the requested variance. Um the Broadicks um have moved here to
Florida from Ohio permanently following Mrs. Broadick's retirement and the property is now homesteaded. Um that was took place in uh 2025. This is a two-bedroom, two- bath home with 1,522
square feet. So, it is a smaller home and storage space is at a premium. The requested variance seeks a side and back variance um on setbacks for an accessory structure by the swimming pool in the fenced
backyard of the property. Um during the COVID epidemic, Mr. Rodri undertook the services of an architect who produced a design for the accessory structure and uh construction began with the understanding that the architect was uh
handling the permitting of the structure. In fact, the architect did meet with the planning board or planning office rather on two occasions and it was Mr. Brick's understanding up in Ohio that the permitting was underway and it was being handled because that was the
representation he got from the architect. Also, prior to construction, Mr. Brderick consulted his two next-door neighbors uh to determine if they had any objection to the construction, and they advised that they did not.
Unfortunately, in late 2023, when construction was well underway, Mr. Broadick's next door neighbor complained and a cease work order was served soon after that. The neighbor that had complained did pass away from cancer and
his wife uh died soon after that leaving that property vacant and it remains vacant now. Mr. Brick after getting the cease and desist letter um immediately stopped work and began efforts um on his own to obtain permitting for the accessory
structure and in December 2023 and January 2024 uh his architect accompanied him to meetings. The hurricanes in 2024 did cause severe water damage to the Broadick property and the repairs were made with proper
permitting to that property which is now their homestead. Um during that period unfortunately miss the Broadicks never got any um assistance from FEMA or their homeowners insurance and everything was out of pocket and that became the focus just getting the house back u back in
shape. At that time, the permitting for the accessory structure was still underway but delayed during, you know, due to the uh hurricane um activity and and the glut of other um structure problems. Um
and payment was made to the city and meetings were held on um the progress of the permitting um with code enforcement. At present, as Mr. Martinez advised code enforcement has been continued pending this meeting.
Now, it's been nearly three years since the cease and desist order was entered. The next door property where the complainant lives remains vacant and has not been remediated following the hurricanes. It's just been standing there exactly like it was when the water
came and receded. The other neighboring pro property on the other side is um in the process of being raised up and at present is not occupied. The variance application request a setback on the side and back of the
accessory structure and I've just pulled from the um staff report. See how this turns out. The side setback of 6.7 feet is required. The existing encroachment is 3.3 feet. The variance requested is 3.3
feet. And at the rear there's a 20 foot requirement. A 9 ft encroachment and 11 ft variance is requested. The structure is located on a pool deck and the uh required pool retaining wall
prevents it being uh relocated. I have a visual um showing the um requested variance as well as um a rendering of what the variance is going
to look like with with the requested changes. This is something that the homeowner did um to show the removal of that center wall that Mr. Martinez was referencing.
And what we have is a lai to the right. Um, and the storage area that exists presently is reduced to incorporate an open air area with the enclosed area being um approximately 81 ft. And it's
the intention of the homeowner to store hurricane protection there, including garrison flood panels, which he has purchased for the doorways. As Mr. Martinez advised, there's been a recent site inspection and the staff
report has been issued setting out recommendations that are agreeable to the Broadicks and will be easily accommodated to resolve the matter. The staff um report recommends that the storage area be maintained as
non-habitable, which is um easy enough. There is no air conditioning in there. There's no plumbing. Um no air conditioning be installed. There's there is none. the wall reduced to a knee wall which I've just shown on the rendering um as being the plan and permits to be
obtained which is um what we would do upon approval by the board uh to finalize the permitting for this uh proposed structure and then a site inspection of the completed work prior to issuance of the final inspection approval.
The main main recommendation of course is the removal of the portion of the wall which you've seen. And as a reminder, this is what it looks like now. So the removal of the wall is that second window area.
>> Can we see the proposed one again? >> Yes. And then so this is the current and this is the proposed actually looks maybe better. Um
Mr. Broadick has asked his neighbors again if they have any objection in addition to the sign in his yard advising of this meeting. Um and has obtained two letters of support. One is uh from Chip Wilson who is present today
and available to um answer any questions. And I do have um copies of the letter I could uh provide to the board. Um he resides Mr. Wilson revi resides at 3511
Belle Vista Drive East which is um somewhere close to the property and then Michael Bush as well has provided a letter in support. He resides at 3547
Bel Vista Drive East. >> Are either of those um individuals the property that um is affected by the rear setback? immediately recepted and it's vacant currently.
>> It's uh the next the one uh the property if you're facing the house to the right is where the um deceased neighbors were living and it's vacant. To the left if you're facing the front door is the property that's being raised and >> that's
right behind me. >> I apologize. Um I'm I'm trying to remember when I was just there for the site inspection, but you're right. >> Okay. Um so he's he's um it's it's vacant now, but the he the occupant
>> I'm sure he has no problem with >> but he has provided a letter in case you don't want to take >> if if you'd like to address the board, you're welcome to once your agent's done. >> Apologize. Um so we do have those two
letters um um in support. Um if the variance is not permitted, there will need to be substantial changes to the pool deck itself um which is now fully complete and was permitted. Um, I have a visual that would that gives an
indication of how difficult it would be to comply with the um the setbacks given the pool deck, the required retaining wall for the pool um and then the the property boundaries. Um you can see I've
done this Um the area constrained by the required setbacks is noted in red and the existing retaining wall is noted in uh in blue. Um, a relocation of the accessory
structure, as I said, would would create an unnecessary hardship to the owners who have since the cease and desist order on the accessory structure, incurred great expense associated with repairs to their primary residents following the hurricanes and have a pool
now that was fully permitted and is in compliance. Unfortunately, also there's been a recent additional expense incurred by the owners homeowners when they were victimized by a fishing scam that targeted them for over $4,000.
Looking at the staff report, um at item seven, uh the requested variance is the minimum to make reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The staff report itself at
item seven, page 13 of 15 in their um report notes that relocation of the structure is not practical and further reduction or relocation would compromise the functionality of these improvements and likely require alterations to the
existing pool area. We request that the variance on the setbacks be granted and should the board allow the variance, the products will obtain after the fact permitting to complete the recommended alterations to the structure as indicated in the uh in
the prior uh figure six from the staff report which I have shown a couple of times with the the knee wall. Thank you for your time and we're happy to answer any questions. The one neighbor is present. um to answer any questions. And of course, Mr. Broadick and Mrs. Broadick
are present. >> Questions for the homeowner's agent? >> None for mine. >> If the homeowner would like to share anything in addition, now would be the time. If not, if there's anybody here in
support or in opposition of this case that would like to share their comments with the board, we'd be happy to hear them. >> I'd like to say so. Please come come forward. >> Back. >> I mean, my back is trash. We're doing construction and stuff, but I live next to these guys. >> Can you share your name and address?
>> Wilson. >> Address. >> The fact of the matter. >> Can you share your address, Mr. Wilson? >> 511 Drive. >> Thank you. >> I've been down here since 2008. I'm from Delaware. Everyone's a lawyer there. And the fact of the matter is we've had nothing more than complications with
Salary next to us. Since I've been down here, he's been nothing more than complications. drug addict on and on committed suicide is what happened because I went over to the house. >> Let's please keep the comments relevant to today's case. Okay, sir. >> I was telling you to give you a little
factual information because he was nothing more than a dead beat in our neighborhood and these guys have a spectacular house and if you guys came over and saw it, you want to live there and that kind of stuff. And it really burns me up because I did the
same thing in my house when I came down here. I couldn't live in this house because the people down here don't care about stuff like we do up north by that. >> Well, there you go. I'm well educated. The biggest thing my father used he was
a corporate lawyer for Dupont. >> Okay, sir. >> I I appreciate your comments and I appreciate you being here to support your neighbors. >> That we've got it. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, sir. >> If you could please have a seat.
Nonsense. >> Anyone else hearing? None. We'll close public comment and open for discussion. >> This is heartbreaking because everything from the neighbor
dying to the hurricanes to not having it permitted to begin with, but thinking it was permitted. My only my main concern here is there are people who have done work without permits here who have been told you got to tear that down because you didn't get
permits. They didn't get a $330 fine. So it's just it's tough because on one hand that's we've seen that as a precedent. On the other hand that's such a heartbreaking story and I I really >> and we do take every case independently.
So I hear I agree with you. This is a very challenging case. I think the narrative of Please, sir, if if we can't keep um order, we'll we'll need to um ask you to leave. Okay. Thank you. Um I think the narrative of an individual
that was working with a contractor remotely that has now become a permanent homestead resident, you know, and wants to make them this his home. Um and is trying to abide now by the rules. um and unfortunately had a terrible hurricane in the process of doing so makes it more
complicated than you know just reading the history on paper. >> I think our decision though is really the variance itself and if we agree to that then they can move forward and that takes care of that whole situation. >> It is it's complicated in the background. >> Yep.
>> But it's really a simple task I think on our end. >> Yep. >> Agreed. the one like my one hesitance is the significance of the variance to the back of the property, but in hearing the testimony today and the hardship that would be required to move the structure,
I do believe they have met um the criteria for that component of the hardship >> with the pool permit and everyone thing else. I think we're all in order there. >> There's support as well. So, the permanent issue doesn't bo that's that's not to be taken into consideration.
>> Well, it is um I mean they unknowingly built the structure based off their testimony. They thought they had permits to build the structure. They were living in Ohio at the time >> and and with co that was for a while you couldn't even go into city hall to get permits.
>> We've we've seen um that narrative reoccur during that time period. Um, and I think they've since shown the willingness to do all of their hurricane repairs properly, you know, via permit. And >> understandably, the pool structure is
going to become after they get their home in order and able to live there, right? Um, so I think it's I I'm not very comfortable with the fact that there's an open court enforcement on the case, but I also understand that that is pending them being able to do that based off what they understand they can do to
the property, you know, as a whole. So to people that were getting permits or trying to get permits during COVID, were they >> I I understood they could just apply and there wasn't anybody here to grant the permits. Yeah.
>> I I can't speak um confidently to what that process was, but it's not really, you know, necessarily relevant. It's just the, you know, tight history. >> And they were willing to comply with all five of the >> their agent addressed all five components without any concerns. We're
good there. >> Correct. >> And they're going to pay a fine of a set amount. I believe it was $330. >> Okay. It's not going to increase all >> administrative fine. Kristen, did you have anything else to share based off your discussion? >> Ask, >> we do. Go ahead.
>> Um, just if you are considering support of the variance that the applicant is aware that the building permit has to be obtained within a year. So, as part of staff conditions is they do have to um obtain a permit after the fact, which depending on the contractor, the
architect and it's already been constructed. I'm not sure what the building department's going to require as part of that. So, that should be taken into consideration, but our approval would be that a building permit application h or permit has to be obtained within a year. Okay. Is that requirement?
>> Okay. >> It's not stated in the five. Okay. It's it's it's hard. >> It says that um the applicant shall obtain all required B building permits consistent with the approved plans and we can amend that to ensure it's very
clear that that would be within the year to condition for. >> Um and the only other one thing if I may madam chair and board members is based on the site visit that was out there in the rendering that was proposed that they showed like a little like cased opening going into that knee wall
section. They do have a exterior door that is there and I do believe that is uh proposed to remain. I don't know if that has any relevance but I just wanted to put that on the record if they'd like to speak to that as well if necessary. >> The exterior door to that there are two doorways into that storage.
>> Well, there's the one from the front and the side, but that knee wall portion from the uh covered lai area, there is a door currently there and I do believe they wish to retain that. So, it's not ex exact to the rendering that they provided. They did express that. So, I
just wanted that to be part of the record if that was of any concern. >> And that door does not go into the storage facility. >> Yeah. >> I thought I thought on the second the newest rendition that there there was no door in that >> in the rendering there is not there
currently is being that that was the bathroom area. >> Okay. >> Or that's currently there. They do I believe wish to retain that but I would like to get that on the record as well if they do or do not. And I don't know if that has any >> Yes. So my understanding was there was not currently plumbing or AC. Is that
not correct? There >> I would have the applicant. >> We have testimony to that because >> can you please come and state your name and address for the record? >> Mark at the podium >> here. Yeah. Sorry. >> It's recorded so we need to be able to hear.
>> Yeah. My name is Mark for >> Yeah. There is there's no plumbing in the structure at all right now. And that breezeway it I would like to keep it a doorway just because I've already got garrison flood planks to protect it but it's going to be an open eye so
water could still come in. So, >> so what would be the um functionality of having that additional doorway there other when understanding in the rendering that you showed us there was a storage way or storage area with >> well my carpenters like we could just remove the doorway and trim it out make
it look like a breezeway but the door is there it's a hurricane door I've already got flood planks it was just the only reason to keep would be one less place for water to come in but I'm flexible doesn't have to stay right >> I mean I'd rather it does it's just one
less thing I have to take care of because I still have to cut the wall open, >> but it's really six one way, half a dozen another. >> I've placed the rendering here and um if anyone see that again it's figure six.
>> Um and the idea is that right here, >> right there, there is a door there. Yeah, I've already got >> planks would go and if we had a hurricane that didn't go above them, it would be very helpful,
>> but it would still be open on the knee wall on the other side. >> Oh, definitely. Yeah, that's that's I was planning on doing that. So, we've only got 80, we're still going to have 81 square feet of storage. >> Okay. I mean, I think in my opinion, that's a design function. I just want it
to be on the record that there is no plumbing or AC permitted in this structure. Madam Chair, if I may, if we look at that um proposed rendering, if we can go back to that to where the right of that door is,
there does show a sink >> and I believe there is one currently existing as well. >> Yeah, that's French train though. So my understanding would be that this would have to be permitted and so all of that would be um reviewed at site
inspection and closure of the the permits. Is that correct Kristen? In terms of them being compliance with code and >> despite just regardless of what the visual we're seeing here today is like the end structure needs to be compliant with building. The applicant is stating
that there is to be no plumbing, but there is showing some in the rendering and there is a sink currently there. I just wanted on the record that is if that is to remain or if that is to be removed. >> And one of the conditions is that all plumbing and air conditioning be removed. >> Right. Which is fine with with the
exception of that sink. I was told I can drop that into a French drain if I want to keep it. But it's at the end of the day that's I I'm willing to take it. I'd like to keep it and just do what my plumber said, put it into a French drain, which is like a bucket of rocks in the ground. He explained to me how it
works. So, um I'm okay either way. If if you want it out, it can come out easily. It just >> is. Um Kristen, is that compatible within is that correct based off his >> I don't know from a Florida building code standard if that is acceptable or if that is not
>> also from a flood perspective from Vimma regs. >> Why don't I just agree to take it to sink out? Staff recommends taking it out, right, Kristen? >> I'll take it out. >> Just for simplicity, we're we want, you know, we just want to make sure everything's done. >> Yeah. Well, let's just let's just remove
it. It's easy. >> I'm assuming there's no the plumbing is to I'm assuming there obviously as a CV. The electric has already been completed. Is that the code or do we know or >> We do not. >> That would have to be inspected. We're thinking about just eliminating it because it really is so little electric. If it's just a storage room, we thought
about just using battery operated lights. I mean, we're not going to go in the storage room at night that much. We could probably eliminate electric, too, except for the TV. We might have a little, but like I said, >> it can be fed from the house. >> Yeah,
>> the inspection. I mean, I think all of that >> rather than us making those decisions, but >> I mean, if I get if the inspector >> Yeah, you're right. >> Yeah. I think all of that will need to pass inspection and just know we're trying to give you foresight. >> Yeah. How about we do that? Yeah. Um,
>> do we have any other questions for the applicant? >> No. >> Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So, going back to our prior discussion and reviewing the conditions as so far the only addition we've made is um emphasizing that those permits would need to be
>> applied for within one year. >> Is there any other discussion or >> thoughts for just I understand the air conditioning and she just said >> pling discussion and it is established that he has the sink there and I would just say that >> I would leave it up to permitting to
decide whether or not the sink stays or goes rather than >> us making that decision now. >> It just has to be compliant with >> That's right. >> Yeah, that's right. >> Which we don't even need to rule on like that. >> Exactly. That's my point. >> Yeah. Okay. So, uh, could I have I have
a question because on the code enforcement side, I think it's um not apply for the permits, but it's actually obtain. So, we would want it to be consistent with obtaining the permits within the year.
>> So, there's no discrepancy between the variance approval and the code requirements. >> And it does um condition four does say obtain. We can keep that language and just amend that to say obtain within one year. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Are we in agreement to move forward with the motion? >> Yes. >> Yes. I'll make a proposal that we approve case number 25147
with the five conditions that as stated but also adding to condition number four that the applicant should shall obtain a required building permit and that's to be within one year. Member Small, can you provide um the backup as to why
you're making that motion in terms of the justification for the criteria met based off the testimony you heard today? >> Based off the testimony we've heard today and the hardships I that's what I'm basing it on. >> I second that.
>> Welcome. >> Vice Chair Core. >> Yeah. >> Member Kunzer. >> Yes. >> Member Small. Yes. >> Member Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Chair Chase. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Moving on to the fourth case for this
afternoon. Case number 2686 8351. Blind pass. >> Brandon. >> Thank you. So this is an unnecessary and undo hardship variance for the property of 8351 Blind Pass Road. It is case number
26086 trade wear of wear and sler construction for Jonathan Renkin and Britney Peront of 8351 Blind Pass LLC. Request to repave and expand an existing concrete and turf block parking lot with asphalt. This will result in a parking lot with a
greater number of parking spaces and required by the land development code that is allowed by Wright. However, those excess parking spaces are required to be constructed with turf block or grass parking surface. They're proposing the parking lot to be fully asphalt,
which the asphalt um parking spaces is what triggers this variance request that is made pursuant to land development code section 23.5B. Here is an aerial of the property. It's located at the southeast corner of Blind Pass Road and 84th Avenue.
Property has a zoning of R. That is residential office retail. This is a low to moderate intensity mixeduse zoning district. You can see here a markup of the survey of the property. The existing property
use is office. It has a primary dental office as well as some lower um intensity office uses within it as well. I believe there are three smaller spaces within the building used for lower intensity um offices. So, as mentioned before,
this is a proposed layout plan by the applicant. You can sh see and I'll have another slide showing the existing layout of the lot. They are proposing to asphalt over what is currently a concrete and turf block parking lot.
They're proposing 13 spaces based on this concept plan. They do have a few different arrangements, but they are all laid out based on an excess number of parking spaces on the property. The development requires nine parking spaces. Any excess parking spaces per
the land development code above that nine spaces which is a demand for this particular office building must be turf block or grass. The applicant is requesting to be able to asphalt all 13 of the spaces that are proposed. So they are effectively asking for a variance
for four expect excess spaces to be set in asphalt rather than turf block or grass. You can see here a cleaner copy of the survey just showing where the existing turf block in red is proposed to be um
converted to asphalt paving. The concrete in the center as well as near the building on the east side is also proposed to be made asphalt. There is an existing green space that is proposed to be made asphalt. Paving. That's in between the eastern part of the lot and
the western portion. You can see on the prior slide, a portion of that is proposed to still remain green space uh between those two parking areas, but a portion will be will be paved over and made asphalt as well. So, here are some photographs of the
site. This is showing largely the western lot along Blind Pass Road, showing the existing conditions of the concrete drive lane in the center as well as the turf pl uh turf parking um on the
top right is looking toward the northwest. And then you can see um the eastern portion of the western part of the lot and the bottom left that is showing the turf block parking area uh that exists today.
Uh looking at the top right photo is the eastern side of the building. That is a detention area. There is also one present on the west side of the building. So the property does provide for storm water um within its boundaries. Neither of these areas is proposed to be modified under the
subject scope. So they will retain their existing detention areas on the property. And then you can see on the bottom left image that is looking to the south from the apron on the east side. So the the right or the eastern of the
two parking areas that's showing the eastern parking area that will be converted to asphalt if this request is approved. This is an unnecessary and undue hardship variance. There are eight standards for review. Staff finds that
the applicant has met criteria 2 through six as well as eight. Based on their narrative, we are asking for a little bit of additional testimony for items 1 and seven. Criteria 1 and seven. The board of adjustment must make positive
findings on all eight variance criteria to justify granting a variance. We've asked, as I said before, for additional testimony from the applicant regarding criteria 1 and seven to support their case. There must be a demonstrated hardship of land structure or building that doesn't specifically stem from the
use of the building or that solely stems from property aesthetics. Physical challenges like grading that is unviable to rectify uh can be considered. So if there is some substantial issue with grading on the lot that could not be
rectified under a repaving project, that is a hardship of the land. That is something that this board could consider in the issuance of a variance. However, being the first property in the zoning to comply with the standard is not alone sufficient to justify a land a hardship
of the land structure or building. This is one of the very few properties in this zoning district and really citywide that is an office use that contains excess parking. It is also the only office use that I'm aware of that has a fully compliant parking lot or even an
excessively compliant parking lot that is turf block instead of the asphalt or concrete layout. However, being compliant and then requesting to comply with the standard applicable to other properties is not alone sufficient. There must be some hardship
of a land structure or building that accompanies that request. The hardship has been advanced on the basis of the customerf facing business. It should be explained why the other three office spaces that I addressed earlier in the presentation are not sufficient for those spaces to utilize the turf block
spaces. Um, we understand that the customers of the dentistry business um, do have some challenges with the use of the turf block spaces, but with the lot requiring 13 spa or proposed for 13 spaces requiring nine based on the the
use of the the business, we would like to see if there's an additional intensity or additional use of the dental office for this parking lot. That would potentially provide an additional basis for the entire parking lot to be asphalt paving.
We do however find that issuance of this variance is not likely to cause significant adverse impacts to the public. There are existing drainage facilities on the property. One of our major concerns with converting the entire parking area to asphalt is that it would result in a adverse impact to
the neighboring property or to any kind of drainage facilities on the property. However, one of the conditions that would be recommended if this case were to be approved is that the applicant demonstrate at the time of permitting that they are not causing any adverse impact to a budding property specifically to the eastern property
which is in res residential use. The asphalt paving will extend to within a few feet of that property line. Um the applicant will likely show that the drainage from this parking area drains to either the street or the detention facility which is to the south of the
eastern parking area. We do find that the applicant has met criteria 1 through six as well as or sorry two through six as well as eight. The board may also find that the applicant has not supported additional criteria that staff finds them to have supported but we do feel that they have
provided adequate testimony to support six of the eight criteria. We did take this item to technical review committee at the beginning of the month. We primarily discussed with the applicant these storm water requirements what they acknowledged and amending the narrative based on the issues that were
discussed at the meeting. They have supplied a supplemental application that was included with your packet. We do request as I mentioned before some additional applicant testimony. Whether there's some condition of the land that creates the hardship advanced by the applicant through the narrative such as
grading changes in the parking area that are challenging to remediate. Whether the dentistry use operates at different times or on different days than the other office uses in the building and requires more than its proportional code compliant parking demand of the lot spaces that could provide a little bit additional use
demand for the additional four spaces to be converted to an asphalt parking. And if the four excess parking spaces can be constructed as compact spaces of 8 ft by no less than 16 ft along the interior aisle of the parking lot and additional landscaping could be provided at the
frontage that would help to compensate for some of the landscaping that is being removed to accommodate this expanded request that would also bring the site into greater compliance with the landscaping division and can compensate for some of the impervious surface increases. That is not an additional variance. That is something
that's allowed by the city's land development code to allow for compact spaces when they are access to the number of spaces required on the lot. So this would effectively shrink the width of the spaces likely on the interior aisle of the western parking lot by
approximately 4 feet. This would allow for the applicant to provide some additional frontage landscaping and bring the site a bit more into compliance with that standard. So we do ask that the applicant or agents address the prior request to provide additional support for their development request should the board of
adjustment find a basis for approval for the subject variance. Staff recommends the following conditions. That the applicant submit and have approved a final asbuilt survey prior to close out of the companion permit. That the applicant shall demonstrate prior permit issuance that the asphalt will not
create any adverse storm water impacts on the eastern residential property. And condition three is that four of the parking spaces located within the center parking aisle shall be installed at 8 ft in width. They can also make the length reductions if they request. It would not be necessary based on this condition.
The remaining four feet that they pick up shall be added to the buffer along the frontage within the property boundaries and landscaping shall be installed to bring the space into greater compliance with land development code section 22.7 which addresses frontage buffer requirements for commercial properties.
So based on that um a little bit of an amended request with the action options made under the prior cases. This would be a motion to approve variance case 26086 finding that the applicant has supported the eight criteria necessary to demonstrate an unnecessary and due undue
hardship because these hardship requests require that all eight of the criteria be supported. We would ask that the board just state definitively that they have provided adequate support for criteria 1 and seven. And if you either agree with staff assessment, you can
accept the recommendation as made or you would provide support for the additional criteria you would like the applicant to additionally support. You can find um that the case has not been adequately supported, a motion to deny, finding that the applicant has not met specified
criteria or a motion to continue the case to a future meeting if you need additional information from either the applicant or from staff. We do have the agent for the case present. We also have one of the owners present as well. Happy to take any questions. >> Question on turf block.
>> Yes. >> The requirement is for drainage or aesthetics or both. >> I believe it's primarily for drainage. I will point out that the applicant has met the lot coverage limitation. Even with the conversion to asphalt, they're
not requesting to lower the or rather raise the impervious surface limitations. I believe the requirement is based on partially on on aesthetics, partially on drainage, and partially on potentially heat island effect or just reducing the amount of paved surface
within a property. >> Did the applicant consider um repairing the turf block rather than asphalting it? >> I don't believe I believe their intent is to to make it asphalt and one of the reasons they provided for that was for stability of the parking lot. Another
was aesthetics and making it a consistent surface. But they may have additional reasons they can speak to. >> Aesthetically, the turf block is more attractive than asphalt to me. >> And they can speak to this when they
present that. I believe their intent is to asphalt at least the nine spaces that they are allowed to based on the code. And what was presented in the narrative is that leaving the other four spaces as grass or turf block would make it less appealing, but they can speak to that.
>> Did we have any comments or receive any um yes neighborhooding residential? >> We did receive one letter of support from a neighbor on the 84th Avenue, a residential neighbor. Yes. And Brandon, you had expressed concern
to the the future as far as them buying property surrounding them. >> Was that the concern is the the property to the immediate east is in use as a residential property. And our concern is just making sure that any asphalt, any
impervious surface placed on the east side, which is currently largely turf block, be controlled to either swale to the street or run into the detention facility directly to the south of it to make sure that it doesn't adversely affect that neighbor to the east. I don't believe they have any plans to expand at this time.
>> Very good. >> Anything else for Brandon? Yeah, Brian, I don't know if it's a question for you, but is the staff concerned with any type of liability because of the turf because of the because of the unevenness of that? I'm just curious if you is that
something you've addressed or thought of. I'm just or have an opinion on as staff. Well, certainly for the excessive >> I'm sorry, but the pictures themselves look like it's pretty rough and and I as a doctor, you know, I was always worried about liability.
>> It came to me. >> That is partially what they've they've advanced as as part of the basis for their request specifically for their patients. It was stated in the narrative that they they serve an older population. They were concerned about the stability of their spaces. I what I would like them to speak to in that
regard is they do have three office spaces within the office building that are not in use by the dentistry office. Effectively, I would just like them to state whether they have need for those additional three spaces that could potentially be kept turf block and have
those spaces service those individual units. They may have different operating hours from those spaces. They may have increased demand, but that wasn't directly addressed through the narrative. I do understand the concerns with the stability though and I would like them to just provide a little bit more testimony to that because they did advance that in their narrative.
>> I just didn't know if you had an opinion on that as far as what it looked like because I wasn't able to go check it out. So >> anything else for Brendan? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> The applicant will please come up forward and state your name and address for the record.
>> Madam chair, any disclosures or any expert? >> No, just a site visit. >> None for me. >> Driveby. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you for having us today. My name is Trey Wear with Wear and Slacker Construction. I am the um GC
and the agent for the owners at 8351 Blind Pass Road. Let's see. >> Just one moment. The PowerPoint, please. >> There we go. Okay. So yeah, I'm I'm the general contractor and agent for the owners at
8351 Blind Pass Road. That's um Britney Peront who I have with me today and her husband Jonathan Rickin. So today we are here requesting a variance from section 23.B B specifically only that one of the land development code to allow for parking
spaces in excess of the minimum required by the code to be constructed as conventional paved asphalt parking rather than turf block or other semi-pervious materials. Um and throughout our presentation today I hope you see that our request does not seek additional density. It doesn't seek
additional impervious area or in any increase in devel developmental rights for that matter. Um, our request simply seeks flexibility in the surface material used for the parking within the impervious area already permitted to us through the zoning regulations.
So, I'll start out first by introducing the property, the hardship, and um the variance, and then I'll have Britney come up here and speak to some of the business specific um needs for the parking lot. Um, so this right here, as you can see,
is the uh latest survey taken back in April of the property in question. So it's 8351 Blind Pass Road. It sits at the corner of Blind Pass Road and 84th Avenue North in the ROR zoning district. Um, it's on an 11,500 square foot lot,
which is at the high end of the RO zoning district from what's available out there. Um, and that's an important factor when I introduce the variance request here shortly to keep in keep in mind the size of the lot. Um, the existing building on the property is 2900 square ft condition space. Um, and
it has an improved use of office. Um, and that's where Britney operates her pure dental clinic um, right there on that property. So, the variance request today is going to be focused primarily on the parking that you see uh, just page north of the building in the survey.
So this is a photo of the existing parking lot and as we've discussed it's currently composed of a mix of parking surface materials uh paved concrete and also turf block pavers and like we've mentioned previously you know it's in pretty rough shape. Um really the
parking lot needs to come come out and we need to redo it. Um the concrete paving, you know, there's some significant cracks there that pose hazards and then the turf block you see that photo on the left. Um yeah, that doesn't lend itself well to, you know, women in heels and um my client's
elderly patient base as well, which Britney will speak to. So, the focus of this variance request is to only pave and asphalt the existing parking surface we have now. Yes, it's made of two different um materials currently, but we're not asking for anything else.
Literally, just go back and pave with asphalt our our parking surface. And so if you guys approve this variance request, our our um our site plan would look something like this. Um this wouldn't be the ex the exact side plan we submit. Like Brandon said, we need to
we need to massage it a little bit to make sure it complies with other parts of the code, but it'd be substantially similar. Um and as you can see, we can comfortably comfortably fit 13 or 14 parking spaces in the layout of our existing parking that we have today. Um
and then it's also very important um aspect of those variants to understand that the improvements we're proposing today remain fully compliant with all impervious surface limitations already extended to us through the RO zoning.
So this right here is the calculation of the ISRs. On the left we have the existing um and you can see it's only 40.8% 8% ISR when allowed by code is 85%. Um, and we're maxed out at that 40%.
That's a big difference. That's that's essentially saying that um over half of our allow allowable imperous surface area by the uh zoning regulation is basically unusable um for our our property specifically. If you guys were
to approve the variance request to pave the entire area of existing parking in asphalt, it'd only bring us up to 70% still substantially less than the um zoning regulation limitation.
So again, specifically, this is only a request for a variance from 23.5B um that reads, "Parking spaces that are in excess of the number of spaces required by this division shall be constructed as grass parking, turf block, or in a parking structure." Well,
a parking structure is not a reasonable use of land on a lot this size. um and grass parking or turf block is a lesser quality material that um constitutes a variance that my client should not or a hardship that my client should not have
to face especially when they're already meeting the ISR limitations of the zoning regulation um which as you guys know is the primary factor um that dictates how much site development you can you can pursue. So, we're again, we're not asking for additional ISR.
We're not asking for additional building area or density or intensity of use. We're only asking to be able to pave um what's physically fits on our site, which I showed you on the previous site plan. Um you know, we're not asking for anything more. It's just some
flexibility in the materials. So, how does this apply to our land? So in our case, the property could legally contain substantially more impervious surface area under the RO district regulations, but section 23.B
specifically that section effectively prevents that area from being reasonably used for any pave parking. And that's specific to our property because of the combination of three specific code provisions um in combination with our land size. So the first one being the
low inensity minimum parking requirement for the office use which is one parking space per 300 square ft of conditioned building area. Um combined with the RR zoning district's generous ISR requirement of 85% and then section 23B
that proh prohibits conventional pave parking more than the minimum required by code. So those three factors of the code combined creates a condition that in which portions of our already permitted impervious surface area cannot be used for any practical site
development. And that hardship is specifically is significantly amplified for properties in the RO zoning with a comparatively larger lot size. um you know it's so significant on our property that 44% of our site can't be
used um because of section 23.5 specifically um and and because of the size of our property. So if you look at the our lot size compared to other lots in the RO zoning um there's only 20 properties
zoned RO within the city limits. Um and of those 20 properties the average lot size is 9,400 square feet. Ours is 11,500. So, you know, significantly greater than average. Um, and of those 20 properties, um, there are only three
properties that are larger than ours in the RO zoning. So, we're at the high end of this. Um, it's affecting us a lot more in RO zoning than all the other properties um, in the zoning district. And if you look at it by use, like what Brandon was getting to previously, of
the 20 properties zoned RO within city limits, only two other properties have an approved office use like us. And it's worth noting that those two other properties, they don't currently conform with this code, 23.5. Um, one of the office use properties has
13 more paved parking spaces than what's allowed by 23.5 and the other one has two more paved parking spaces than what's allowed. And I don't say that to, you know, point fingers or get anyone in trouble. I'm just, you know, trying to show that there is a need um for
additional parking more than the minimum required by code um that we should be able to address and for for lots specifically with our specific conditions. So I'm hoping you understand that you
know our request is for simple flexibility in the surface material used for the parking within the already permitted imperous area allowance that that we have through the zoning. Um and it's in it's our opinion that approving this variance would result in fall in
the following aspects that are aligned with the intent and purpose of the land development code probably more so than rejecting it. Um, if you approve the variance, um, we would say that, um, a fully paved asphalt parking lot would be more visually appealing than a parking
lot with split mixed construction materials. Um, you'd be approving a parking lot that would be safe and free of trip hazards. Whereas, if we have to construct a parking lot of mixed construction materials, there there will always be trip hazards. Um, you would be
allowing us to better enhance the storm water control with the use of curbs on a asphalt paved parking lot. Um, that will take away Brandon's concern for our impacts on the neighbors. Um, we can grade everything towards the street or towards the drainage area and the use of curbs will significantly reduce that
concern. And then the retention of property value. um you know the a fully paved asphalt parking lot will retain its value more so than a a parking lot of mixed materials. So with that um I'll go ahead and um
have Britney come up here and talk to some uh business specific needs for the parking lot. >> Thank you. >> Hi there. Um my name is Britney Purot. I am the owner and the doctor of Pure
Dental. Um, >> we could also get your address for the record. >> Oh yes, sorry. 8351 Blind Pass Road, St. Pete Beach. Um, so yeah, so I actually ironically just um last week had because my clientele tends to be we're very, as
you guys know, snowbird driven in this area and that doesn't go you know unnoticed in my practice. So we're very busy in the winter, not as busy in the summer. Um, but on that note, a lot of my patients are older and I have had
numerous complaints on on how hard it is to push, you know, wheelchairs and a lot of times those people pushing them are older as well. Um, that and also walkers specifically with the um the cross ones that it gets stuck in there. And just
last week, I actually had somebody fall to the point where we almost had to call for help, but we were able to get them up. that was in that exact, you know, location. So, that was kind of my main reason for doing it because I want safety and I don't want anybody to get injured. Um, and we have a lot of people
in wheelchairs and and walkers. Um, on the other note, I do have three offices that I do rent out on the other side. I do have them when I they sign their lease, I have them so that they could
only have one spot per, you know, um, office. So, they know that ahead of time, but it's still three spots there. And then I have five staff and myself, so that's six. And then in my busy times, and then, of course, we can't park on the street or anywhere else because we'd be violating other things.
So, we definitely could use the extra parking um, in that regard. So those were kind of the main, you know, concerns and reasons and a lot of it is from safety perspective on that and doing my ramp um to to make sure that my
patients can push their wheelchairs and walk, you know, safely because I think my average population is probably in their 70s for the patients that I see. So that's that's the reason for it. Do you have any concerns with the staff recommendation of making the four additional spots compact in order to be
able to provide some additional landscaping to um beautify the kind of frontage property? >> I think I should be fine. >> Yeah. Any additional questions for the applicant? >> Are the other two spaces leased out yet? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Yes, they are. And they they do tend to work, you know, I don't like to put specific hours that they can they can be in, you know, so they can kind of come and go when they please, but they know that there can only be one spot, at least during my working hours, you know,
which are Monday through Thursday, like 9 to 4 type thing. So, any other question? >> That's it. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. If there's anybody else that would like to speak on behalf or in opposition of
this case, now would be the time. Hearing none, we'll close public comment and open for board discussion. >> I think if I think Brandon was worried about one and I think they've justified one for sure with the liability issue, no doubt. >> Yep. And just the the extensive um
discussion around the size of the property and connection to the district. Um and then I also believe criteria 7 was just addressed in um discussing the other office spaces, the number of staff and then the necessity for the um
>> and I think curbs are a big thing as far as controlling the water flow. So >> yeah, I was going to say that if we approved it that they could have the asphalt that swell wall to protect their neighbors from runoff. And I don't know
where that runoff would go exactly because I don't know where the drainage is in that area. But >> at least it wouldn't go into the neighbors. >> And would that would you feel that would be covered by the current condition of ensuring >> runoff is addressed or would you feel
more comfortable specifically? >> I would specifically require a swell wall um rather than making things a general so that the runoff is directed specifically just to protect the neighbors. because we are losing permeability by
taking the dirt out. >> Yeah, >> I I'm agree. I mean, especially with that amount of during the rain, that amount of >> asphalt. Yeah, there's a lot of water is going to be removed. Yeah. >> Would the applicant like to address
whether that condition would be >> Can I clarify? Are you are you just are you talking about curbs or are you talking about something different? >> Uh when you say curb, I'm thinking Swell wall. um just to prevent water flow into the neighbor. That's >> a retaining wall or just parking lot curbs.
>> Uh well, a swell wall can just just be a long wall just to direct the water to the street and not to the neighbors. >> So just standard parking lot curbs, >> correct? >> Um yes, >> I guess I mean I
>> that would work for your for what you're asking. That would definitely work. >> Yes, I think that would be adequate. >> Okay. Good. >> And that's you've already addressed that. So, absolutely. >> Just want to make sure we're speaking the same language. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, it seems like we've all agreed that criteria one and seven have
been addressed based off the testimony heard today. >> Any other points? >> No, I completely changed my mind from what I was thinking to when I heard the excellent explanation. Yeah. And the thing about having older people who have
mobility issues, I'm one of those people. Um, it that definitely can be a real problem. I mean, I'm not in a wheelchair, but walkers and wheelchairs. I mean, I understand that.
>> Are we at the point for a motion? >> I move that we approve case 26086 with staff recommendations. I second. >> Do we need to be clear? I'm sorry. Do we need to be clear, Nancy, on the one and that we've it's we're satisfied with the
uh >> Yes. There was there was discussion um specifically to one and seven. I think it's covered in the record. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So, second roll call, please. >> Member Small, >> yes. >> Member Schmidt, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Core,
>> yes. >> Member Ker, >> yes. >> Chair Chase Trace, >> yes. Motion carries. >> Thank you. Moving on to our final case for this afternoon. Case number 26094 at 8350 Bokea Siega Drive. Thank you for your patience.
>> Take a small bathroom. >> Yes. Um we'll take a five minute recess. >> I can demonstrate my Case number 260948350 Bokea Drive. >> Thank you. >> So this is a request for 8350 Bokea
Drive. It's a practical difficulty variance. Megan and Joseph Grant request to construct an unroofed elevated deck that encroaches to 11.08 08 feet from the front property line where 20 feet is required for decks elevated more than two feet above grade. The request is made pursuant to land development code
section 6.13 C2B. Here is an aerial of the property. It's located at the southwest side of 84th Avenue and Bokea Drive. Property has zoning of RU2 which is a
residential single family zoning district. That is currently its use. The land development code requires a 20 foot front yard setback for open decks located within the front of a structure. Pursuant to land development code section 6.13 C2B,
the existing front setback of the residence is 20 ft on this side. The applicant's requesting to construct a new open deck that will be elevated to the first living level of the home and encroach to 11.08 ft from the front property line. You can see the standards in the table at the bottom of the
screen. 20 foot required setback. existing dwelling is just at that setback. They are proposing an elevated deck at just over 11 feet from the front property line. And you can see that here on the sketch that was provided with the request.
That is the 84th Avenue side on the right side of the screen where the encroachment will be made toward. Here's some photographs of the site showing the signposting at both frontages. This is looking at the front yard where
the deck is proposed. It will extend over the backyard, the PVC fence area. On the right side of the screen, you can see another from standing at the intersection, the southwest corner of the intersection looking toward the home.
Um, this is looking toward the backyard from the front edge of the property. I did speak with the applicant. They are proposing to move the fence forward slightly, but it will be reduced in height to meet the front yard setback standards of 4 feet. It is an existing,
I believe, six foot fence there. Another from the uh tree in the front looking toward the south uh from the frontage of the property. There are the four criteria for the practical difficulty variance.
Staff asks for testimony as to why the deck cannot be reasonably accommodated on the east side of the structure where it could be constructed the same depth without need for a variance. This is on the Bokea side of the structure looking toward the west. Um, I would assume that it would have to do with the internal
circulation of the residence as well as shade provided on the on the north side, but we would like the applicant to speak to why they decided to construct it on the 84th Avenue side instead of the Bokea Siega Drive side. Being in the RU2 zoning district, there is only a 10-ft
setback from the longer of the two frontages, which is the Bokea Drive side. Um and it it appears that a deck of approximately nine feet in depth could be accommodated on this side without need for a variance.
Staff request testimony um from the applicant. As just stated before, if you do find if the board finds that the applicant has adequately addressed all four criteria necessary to issue a practical difficulty variance, we do recommend three conditions intended to protect the public welfare. The western
portion of the deck within the required sideyard setback does not require a variance. It is only the frontage extension that requires a variance. And the reason for that is because the applicant has provided the access on the west side of the deck facing the neighbor's property to the direct west.
There is about a just over 4ft setback on the west side there. That is allowed because it is currently used as access. We do ask that that access be maintained into the future that it not become an extension of the usable part of the deck and only be used for the stair access as
well as the landing at the top. The deck shall not be roofed or enclosed and a final asbuilt survey shall be submitted and approved prior to close out of the associated building permit. We did receive two letters of support for this request. One was provided by a neighbor two properties to the west. In the
applicant's narrative that they provided with the application, they did state that they had spoken to the neighbor to the direct west. Um they did not provide a letter. We just asked that the applicant put on the record that they did speak to that neighbor and receive their their approval for this for this
request. With that being said, um the three action options are on your screen based on the testimony provided by the applicant. Happy to answer any questions. We do have the owners present. >> Thank you, Brandon. Any questions for Brandon? >> No. >> Thank you.
>> The applicant would please come forward and share your case with the board. >> Hello everyone. Uh my name is Meg Grant and um I guess I'll I'll start with addressing >> your address, Mike. >> Oh, sure. 8350 Boka Drive. Thank you. >> Um I'll start by addressing the question
that was proposed on why we couldn't do it on the east side of our property. So we live on a corner lot and if you guys So the front yard that he's referencing is actually our sideyard on 84th. Um if we were to put the deck on the east side of our property that faces Bokea Drive
which is a pretty busy street. Um school line is always there every day for Gulf Beach's Magnet School. We have young children and more on the way and um want them to be able to have a place where we can kind of open up our living space and get down into the backyard. And so that's um Brandon used a a better term,
but like internal circulation of the home. It just makes more sense for us to be doing it on the west side um of our of our property. Um what else? >> We we >> do you have anything else to say? We do
have another letter from our neighbor directly on the west side that is signed and and should have been David. We could present that >> uh as well. Uh and then just as a reason we didn't build it off the back when consulting with that neighbor. They do have a pool area. So we felt that a deck
just directly out outside the backyard would maybe be impeding to their kind of pool space area. So, a lot of this was kind of deliberated with some of our neighbors to just find, you know, where the best space for us would be to move forward. >> Yeah. Wade is our neighbor directly to
he's right here >> directly to our west. Um, and then I think what Joy was just doing a good job of explaining is like here's his pool area right here. And so we could have code compliantly
gone this way with the deck. And I think instead um you know the farther we go this way the more we're kind of like looking over our fence into his pool area. So um although he does not like he didn't really care. I feel like it was our decision to kind of just make this
feel more wellrounded in the house. >> Show me where you did you showed the side you could do it on. Now show me the other side where you want to do it. >> Where we want to do it is right here. >> That white spot right there. Yeah. So um this actually this is perfectly compliant. It's just this portion right here that we would be seeking the
variance for. >> And again, like that's added extra square footage that we'd like for the deck that we could put here, but I felt like we both felt like that. >> And is Boca Sa Drive the win at the bottom? >> 100 would be Boca. >> Bokea SGA Drive is right here. Yeah.
>> So, the question that was proposed initially was why don't we go off the east side of the home, which would be kind of like the very the front of our home, and it just doesn't >> Can we get the picture back? Cuz Yeah. >> There you go. >> There we go. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you guys could >> Is that 84th? That's at the top right.
>> Yep. Yep. This is 84th right here. And this is Focus Drive right here. >> So the west side of our home is this side right here. >> Any additional questions for the applicant? >> No, I don't think so.
>> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Is >> there anyone else here today that would like >> if I may? Yes, I do. The decking material is >> composite. >> Composite. Yes. Okay. And was Brandon, was there any concerns about spacing on
the composite? >> No, not >> good enough. Thank you. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else here today that would like to speak in support or opposition of today's case? Hearing none, we'll close public comment
and open for board discussion. I think this is a very um classic case where you have a corner lot that technically has two front yards and so you have site setbacks that you're being >> um forced to comply with that may not necessarily really be relevant to the
way the house is constructed. Um I think the one component that staff asked for additional testimony on they were very clear and I also think it's um nice to see them go out of their way to accommodate you know what will be best
suited for the neighborhood. It's my two cents >> and I think our in the material says that it's it it's fairly common along that neighborhood to be to build to that side. So I don't I'm good. >> Neighbors are in support. >> Yes. Was there any
>> neighborhood is different here? So that's >> exparte or conflicts? >> No experte on this one. No. >> Okay. >> Nope. >> Okay. >> Are we good? >> Yeah. >> So I'd like to move that we approve uh case number 26094
uh with the specified conditions laid out by the uh by Brandon. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Core. >> Yes. >> Member Ker. >> Yes. >> Member Small. Yes. >> Member Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Chair Chase. >> Yes. Motion carries.
>> Thank you. >> You had to wait a long time for that meeting. >> Just let us know when the pool party is. Okay. >> All right. So, our next meeting will be on July 29th, which is a Monday. >> No, it is actually Wednesday. >> Oh, it is a Wednesday. >> Back to Wednesday. Yeah. Okay.
>> Wednesday. July. Wednesday. >> Yes. >> It's usually the last Wednesday of the month. Um looking >> um we do have at least two applications right now, but there are some that are trying to get some >> in the hopper.
>> Um any other discussion? Nancy? >> No. Um unfortunately I will not be here on the 29th. So uh Ralph will probably cover the meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Meeting adjourned.
>> See you in a couple months then because