Mr. Fuchs is out. Okay. If we could have the quasi judicial announcement from our attorney and the swearing in of speakers. Sure thing. This is a quasi
judicial proceeding where the board of. Excuse me. The board of commissioners. Acts. Board of adjustment acts in a quasi judicial rather than legislative
capacity at a quasi judicial hearing. It is not the board's function to make law. Rather, to apply the law that has already been established in a quasi judicial hearing. The board is
required by law to make findings of fact based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, and apply those findings of fact to previously established criteria contained in the Code of Ordinances in order to make a
legal decision regarding the application before it. The board may only consider evidence at this hearing that the law considers competent, substantial, and relevant to the
issues. If the competent, substantial, and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has met the criteria established in the Code of Ordinance, then the board is required by law to
find in favor of the applicant. By the same token, if the competent, substantial and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has failed to meet the criteria established in the Code of Ordinance, then the board is
required by law to find against the applicant.
The swearing. And witnesses. Stand up please. And would you raise your right hand? And do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Tonight we have before us application number 24, dash 82,
a variance to allow a nonconforming lot of record to be built upon for the purpose of constructing a single family home. And we'll hear
presentation from Miss Ellie Keane. Okay. Ali Keane. Principal planner with the planning and zoning department. Okay. The subject property is
highlighted here in red. It's located off of North Distant Avenue, just north of East Center Street. This property, as well as all the surrounding properties are in the are 78
single family residential zoning district. And again, the applicants are requesting variance approval to allow a nonconforming lot of record, which is lot four that was under common ownership with an
adjacent property to the north, which is lot three to be considered a separate buildable lot. And this is for the purpose of constructing a single family home on lot four. The Land Development Code states that if
at any time the owner of a nonconforming lot of record owns adjoining land, the lots must be combined to meet the minimum lot requirements. The R 78 district
requires a minimum lot area of 6500ft■!S, and minimum lot depth of 80ft, and a minimum lot width of 60ft. The subject property meets the minimum lot area and depth, but it is nonconforming
by two feet for the lot width, and it's only 58ft wide. There's a little bit of history with this particular application and why it's before the board tonight. The there is a
provision in the land development Code for deviations of 5% or less of normal zoning requirements that allows us to process a de minimis variance or an administrative variance. If
there are no letters of objections that are received from adjacent property owners, then the city manager or the designee, which is the planning department, is able to approve the variance without it coming before the Board of Adjustment.
This application qualified for that process, so we continued with that process. So on December 9th we provided due notification to the adjacent property owners. And they were
sent notification. And they had a 15 day notice period to provide a letter of notification or letter of no objection. That 15 day period ended on December
24th and we received no objections at that time. Then on December 30th, we issued the Administrative Variance approval and the applicant could proceed with their construction plans. A
few weeks later, on January 15th, the planning Department received a letter in the mail and it was an objection letter for this application. Even though this was outside of the
15 day period, we noticed that there was a date on the letter and it was postmarked within that 15 day period. It was dated December 15th. So we informed the applicant of this, and then
we also provided a letter to the property owner and informed them that they could appeal the application within a 60 day period of the administrative variance. Approval to the full
board for review. And then on February 28th, that adjacent property owner submitted their second objection letter, which forwarded the application to you
guys today. So looking at some site history, this property was originally platted back in 1907, and it was part of the original plat of Tarpon Springs. The
specifically lot four of block 26. And this is the plat here on the screen. And this predates any sort of zoning regulations in the city. And before any sort of land development Code went
into effect, which was in 1944. The property did not become non-conforming until 1976. And this is when a new land development code went into effect, and it placed the
property into the R 70 district. And that's when the 60 foot minimum lot width went into effect. And that became non-conforming at this time. Then in 1990, our current land
development code became effective. And again, the minimum lot width of 60ft still applied, and therefore the property is still non-conforming in lot width. As far as common
ownership, lots four, which is the subject property, and lot three to the north were previously in common ownership. However, as of January of this year, the lots are no longer
under common ownership and the applicant owns the subject property. With regard to common ownership, one of the considerations of the board is
whether or not the improvements on the adjacent property were reliant on the vacant property in order to develop the existing home on lot three to the north
was, according to the property appraiser, built in 1935. This again predates any sort of zoning regulations for the city. So there was nothing in effect at that time to determine. But
when looking at the R 78 setbacks that we have in place today, the minimum side setback is 7.5ft. So looking at the survey that was provided, the
existing home has a side setback from that shared property line, which is the one that applies. It roughly has a setback of about eight feet. It ranges
between 8.1 and 8.3 feet. So if this structure was built today, looking at that side setback, regardless of the properties being combined or not combined, it would be compliant with the side setback. So it was not
reliant on that adjacent property or would not be reliant. These are your standards to review for nonconforming lot of record, and
I am happy to take questions. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for our staff tonight? Yes Mr. Grossman. I have a I
have a couple of questions. The first one I noticed in our packet that we have three criteria in the review standard.
And in some of the other packets, there's five review standards because this is it diminished. Is it because it's that type of that we have three.
So they're actually not because it's a de minimis. But I'll touch on that. Different types of requests have different sets of criteria. The criteria here
is specific to nonconforming lots of record. So when you're reviewing an application for this type of request these are the criteria that apply. What you typically see with the five
criteria. Or for most of the variances that you you look at, which are more like setback variances, height, things like that. The de minimis variance
also has a set of criteria that we look at that was that is slightly different. But depending on an application sometimes criteria changes. But these are the criteria that apply to your your request that you're looking at. Okay. Thank
you. Thank you. I have another question. So in reviewing all this it looks like this request
for the variance to build the home would be approved, actually administratively approved, not even have to come before us because it's such a small amount
that it's that it's off. And the, the real only reason that we're here is because there's an objection to the application. So from from staff's. Well, it met
the criteria to be processed for a de minimis variance because it was less than 5% deviation. But staff has to also look at the criteria under de minimis
variances. We determined that it did meet those criteria. So we believe that it could meet those and we could approve it. But part of that process is providing notification to
adjacent property owners. And in that process it says if a letter of objection is received, then it is forwarded to the board. This is just unique because it was over the holidays. We
believe that's why the mail was delayed. Because it came afterwards. We provided that the 60 day normal appeal period for them to get back to us and see
if they wanted to object. So if there was no letter, this would have been approved. Correct. Okay. And then one more
question. I notice on page it has a page ten of 29 on it, one with the. But you could put that
back up. Yes. Okay. This one. So I noticed that in the material I think one of the objections was that it was. That the subject
property was adjacent to another one used for the approval. And in this case, it was not because the only way that it would not
have been approved if that was less than eight feet. So this because the home was built prior to any sort of zoning regulations, you can't say that
it was reliant on the property to the south or not. We don't even know if these two properties were in common ownership when the house was built because of the records. But looking at what the current
requirements are in our code today, the minimum side setback is 7.5ft. So I was just pointing out that the existing home, it exceeds what the minimum requirement is. Okay. So it
really it didn't need the other lot ever to it wouldn't need it today. Yeah. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Haley. When was this
lot actually just repurchased? I don't know when it was purchased. Well, January, I believe, is when the. It was finalized, but I'll let the
applicant kind of talk about specifics on that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Jackie, do you have any? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So a couple questions. So
the do you happen to have the lot width of lots three and five, the lots to the north and south of the applicant lot.
They're both 58ft. They're both 58ft. And you already clarified the 7.5ft side setback requirement. Okay. And the
properties on the homes built on lots three and five both meet those. So we only are looking at lot three because that's the lot that was under common ownership. I can't speak to lot five. We
don't have that information. Okay. And in the notices that were sent to the adjacent property owners that was sent on December 9th. So it's sounding
like you sent those notices to lots three and five that had the side shared boundaries, adjacent properties. There's also properties that would that are
adjoining on the rear. Are those were those notified. Yes. So we provided let me go. I don't know if I have a good map. So sorry.
So notification was provided. Because at the time 29 maybe this property and this property here were under the same ownership, even though the
applicant was different. So we notified adjacent properties around these two lots. So this property was notified. I believe this one, this one, this one. And then we go across the street
as well. So I believe these two were notified as well. I can't remember if this one on the corner was, but we go on all sides. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Adjacent goes across the street
and alleys like. And the letter of. Objection. The is the property owner of lot. Are we permitted to know that
information? I believe the it's lot five to the south. Lot five to the south. Okay. Anything else, Miss Turner? Not at this
time. Thank you. Miss Keane, just for clarity, tonight, we're just approving or denying a variance to see if this is a buildable lot. Correct? Correct.
If it meets those three setbacks and it's up to them to come back with their plans to the planning office. Correct. If you determine that it meets the criteria for a nonconforming lot
of record, they would have to build under the R 78 setback requirements. If for some reason they were unable to do so, they would have to come before the board for any sort of variance
request. Okay. Thank you. And that gets to your comment too about why the criteria is a little different. So okay. Perfect. Thank you. And with no further questions. Thank you,
Miss Keane. Do we have the applicant present? Yes, sir. If you state your name for the record, and just the fact that you were sworn in and address
Pantelis Mastrovasilis, 58 West Center Street. Yes, I was sworn in. Thank you. I build a lot in Tarpon Springs. The name of the company is called Tarpon Springs
Building Company. A lot of your old lots are pretty much non-conforming. And never really ran into any problems, you know, actually, prior to this. But
we're not asking for no setback variances. We're going to go with that. And I built historical looking homes. So it's going to blend in. And you know, I think it'd be a great
addition to the neighborhood. And we own the lot now. So if you have any questions just let me. Thank you sir. Any questions for the applicant. Seeing none.
Thank you for being here. Okay. Do we have any of the members of the public who would like to speak tonight? Yes, sir. If when you approach, if anybody else
who's wanting to speak to. Can we have the attorney swear them in? Maybe they can be sworn in at the same time. And then you can take turns speaking in. Or
if you both, you just both raise your hand at the same time. Yeah. Do you both swear to affirm or do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Thank you. And yes,
sir, you first. And just please state your name and your address. My name is Rory Kamenetsky. We. Our address is
two, five five North Boston Avenue. It is the lot located two lots north of the lot in question. So you have the what
was the joint property? And then we're next to it. Living in this neighborhood. My wife has been there for over 20 years. I've been there for about 14 myself.
With this being said, we obviously have our little boy here as well, and I can only talk about what a great neighborhood that this is. We're friends with all our neighbors behind us, all around us, all
the surrounding properties. As she had indicated, several of our neighbors, they attend the same school. Some are a little bit older and attend the other schools. We're kind of the home in the neighborhood. That is
known for doing decorations and stuff during the holidays, and other homes were are known for other things. And so we draw quite a good gathering of other kids and children. And we've
just grown very fond of that neighborhood. And knowing that it's centrally located to the nice shopping districts. You have the Walmart, you have Publix and some auto care centers. And obviously it's
right down the road from the downtown Tarpon Springs area. We instead of having a vacant lot, we would greatly welcome another, you know, family home to the neighborhood and another
family that can share the great experiences that we have living there. I also think that it would be beneficial to sprucing up the neighborhood with something a little newer, and
while still blending in with the with the current neighborhood. And I think it's just going to be beneficial all the way around. I mean, it's someone else that can enjoy the wonderful perks that Tarpon
Springs has to offer, including close proximity to downtown. We have four churches, I believe nearby, two located off the same road off a distance, as well as
four schools between the Catholic Church school at Saint Ignatius and then Our Son, which attends Christian Way Academy. And then obviously you have a United Methodist and Tarpon Springs Elementary School. I just think it would be a
wonderful area for a family to move into and have that same opportunity and same experience that we have. Thank you sir.
Yes, sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Charles Alsbach, 1441 Wakeman Drive, Tarpon Springs. Thank you sir. I'm the owner of lot five
and I had submitted the denial because of the two foot rule. I know that the owners own lot three and four. Lot three was no
electricity, no water, just a vacant house. And one of my objections was that I would have to be looking out my bathroom
window right into the house next door, and that's. If they were fixing up lot three. I would be happy to, but it's a vacant one.
No water, no electricity full of bees. And like I said, I submitted the letter on time. Yes, sir. We received it. Thank
you. Okay. Anybody else for the record like to speak tonight? Anybody online? No, we don't
have zoom. No. No. Zoom. Okay. Okay, then I'll close public comment on this time. Anybody any conversation with the board
or someone want to make a motion? I have a question. Can we question the Mr. Özbek? I
don't know if I had your name or if it's for clarification. Not really a back and forth, but there's no if, if, if you need clarification on something he
said or. Yeah, I would like to have a question to him. Okay. Which resident? The Mr. Özbek.
Mr. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So in your letter, you stated that. You
know. You you're stating that it was meant to be not built upon. Yes. At that time, Rick Jones was the owner of the properties,
and he had his built already. He was on lot three, and lot four was just between us as a buffer
zone. So my so what my question is how how did you determine that that lot was not supposed to be built upon in a personal relationship with the owner,
Rick Jones and myself? When I bought the property, I bought the property, I think it was 91. Let me see. Are you probably don't need a documentation. So. So it was through a
conversation. Not not a not a legal document. Or you don't have any documents? No, I don't think so. Okay. I just I just wanted to know where you got the idea that it wasn't going to be.
It shouldn't be the owner. And through a conversation with the owner. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other board conversation for
us? No. I can make a motion. Okay. Mr. Turner. I'd like to make a motion to approve. I'll second. Second. Okay. Thank you.
Can we have roll call? I'm going. Is that Miss Turner? The motion and Mr. Wood? The second? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Would
approve. Miss Turner. Approved. Mr. Grossman approve, miss Rich? Yes. Approve. Okay. Thank you
very much. Do we have any? We have the one set of minutes before us for tonight. They were
the February 20th six minutes. I did notify the secretary that she had called me chair all already. She had called Jackie
chair and myself. Chair? Do I hear anybody approving make a motion to approve the minutes with that one correction. I will
make a motion to approve with the edits regarding. Current chairs. Title referenced in the meeting in the minutes. Do I
hear a second? I'll second. Thank you. Roll call. Mr. Would approve, Miss Turner. Approve, Mr. Grossman. Approve, miss
Rich? Yes. Approved. Okay, so I'll make that correction and then reprint the first sheet. Sounds good. Okay, staff, do you
have any comments for us tonight? Happy march. I do not have any comments. I thank you for being available for this meeting. I know I announced at the February meeting we did not
have a march meeting, so thank you for being accommodating. That was your April Fool's joke? Yeah, I guess it was one week early. I think I told you literally like the day before, so I apologize. No worries. Do
we have anything on the docket for next month? I can't remember. I believe we do. I think we do remember. So stay
tuned. Keep it on your calendar. Keep it on your calendar. Oh, yes, we do. We do. We do. Okay. Thank you. And thank you to our attorney present tonight.
Filling in. So thank you. Anybody else? No. I will call the adjourn the meeting at 6:55
p.m. Chair, would you go? Since I don't want you here next month, I mean. Some. May. I think the real question is, can
you get an answer to it? Oh. Or tomorrow. Or is it going to bother you all night? I know I was going to advertise it early,
that's why. Because it's what I want.