It's the world we live in. Good evening. I want to call the Board of Adjustments for the city of Tarpon Springs to order.
Thank you for being here. It's 6:30 p.m. and ask our secretary, Chloe Siegfried, to do the roll
call, please. Chairperson. Rich. Yes. Vice chair Grossman here, miss Turner. Present, Mr. wood. Present. And Mr. Fuchs is
absent. Thank you. And now, if we'd have our attorney explain the quasi judicial process, please. Yes, ma'am. Would you like me to make the
announcement as to continue? Option to continue tonight. Yes, sir. Okay. Just Mr. Miss Slater. So we don't have all five of our board members here tonight. We only have four out of five.
So because we don't have a full board, it's your option. You're entitled to have your hearing heard at the next meeting next month. Or you can make the choice to have have it heard by the four members that we have
here this evening. Totally up to you. We would just need to know how you would like to proceed on that front. Just. Let's proceed. Right. Okay. So
there's a brief, brief announcement and then I'll swear. You swear you all in to speak tonight. So this is a quasi judicial proceeding where
the Board of Adjustment acts in a quasi judicial rather than a legislative capacity at a quasi judicial hearing. It is not the board's function to make law, but rather to apply 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 excuse me. 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 and with anybody wishing to speak this evening, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you do you swear
that the testimony you'll be providing in these proceedings this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Thank you, Attorney Evans. Tonight
we're going to be hearing application number 25, dash 78, the variance to reduce the required yard setback to an allow an existing detached
garage to remain on the property. And will now hear from staff. McNeese. Good evening. Pat McNeese. Planning
supervisor. This application comes to you from Alfred and Edith Slater, our applicants.
This property is located up by North Pinellas Avenue and Anclote Road. There is a
detached garage on the site and the Slaters residential property is here to the north of that site. The request is
for a side yard setback reduction for the detached garage. Again, this is the owner's primary residential use
and this is the detached garage that was built without a permit. Talk about that in a second.
They are asking for a 1.76ft reduction in the setback. So the proposed setback side yard
setback, which is here on the south side, would be 5.74ft. So just a little bit of history on
this property. And to talk about how this is before you, even though it is an existing building. So the garage was
built by another property owner previous to this zoning, the property, it was in the jurisdiction of Pinellas County. It was not in the city of Tarpon Springs when when the
garage was built, the county cited the previous owner. It went to code enforcement. The property was fines accrued. The
property was eventually leaned and the Slaters bought the property, paid the lien, paid the fines, and the county released the lien on the
property. They did not file a new code enforcement case. Under the new ownership. The intent and the applicant can
speak to this. The intent of the applicant was to ask to annex the garage parcel and
some other parcels. Which we'll see. Yeah. On the next slide here, the garage parcel and and some other properties that were
in unincorporated Pinellas County annex all those in which he owns, all those combined, those with his residential property, which was already in
the city. And then seek after the fact permits for the garage. So. The Board of Commissioners
did approve annexation of this property. They can't really condition it, but it was under the understanding that the applicant would combine the
parcels, apply for a variance, seek a variance, and and after the fact building permit. Obviously, if the variance is
not granted, he would not he would not pull in after the fact permit for the existing structure. The I mean, one
answer is it could be demolished and rebuilt. 1.76ft further to the north would be a remedy for that. So the
applicant did, immediately upon annexation, pursue a filed variance application, pursued the combination of the parcels. One thing is in your staff
report, it said that was underway. We did receive word yesterday from the property appraiser that they approved the parcel combination. It's
just not shown on their website map yet. It will probably show up in a couple days. So the parcel combination has been approved. What that does is
make the the garage a legitimate accessory use. So the garage is allowed as an accessory. Use in in the city. The building is allowed in the
building size conforms with the code. It's that setback that's the issue. So that was the purpose of combining the
parcels. The residential uses. The primary use in the garage is accessory to that. So in the
course of of looking at whether the board could review this, we looked at section two 15 02E through G of of your procedures
and criteria. And this is detailed a little more in the staff report under section F. Well normally you would not see a variance request for an
existing structure built without a permit. We've had a couple of these over the years. When I was doing a Board of adjustment. I remember too in in order to come before the
board, the person had to. One was a shed. They had to demolish that shed that was built illegally. Then coming as the variance they wanted. In this case, we have a garage
that was built nearly three years ago in another jurisdiction by another owner, and we feel it meets section F
215 02F pretty closely. This was a violation of the code that occurred outside of during
the time of ownership of a previous property owner. That is true. The Slaters. I think they could see it was being built, but they did not approve
it. They were not involved in it at all. And it says without the actual knowledge of the owner, who could not have known
of such violation by reasonable inquiry prior to the purchase. That part. Okay. He did know. Okay. He he did the inquiry found out about the code
enforcement case, but he deliberately proceeded with the intention of bringing the property into conformance. So staff felt that this could be
something that you all would be able to look at. Is this the minimum relief necessary? Yes. The garage 5.74ft setback would
be the minimum necessary to legitimize this. This garage. So we had recommended recommended proceeding. So what
I'll do is I'll go through the criteria. But I would like at the end for you to confirm that you concur with that determination and would like to
hear the case and then deliberate on that if you need to, and then deliberate on the decision for the case. So again
this is request for the 5.74ft setback where it should be seven and a half. And you can see this is a survey showing that's the controlling number.
It was 5.74 at the southeast corner and 5.9 at the northwest corner. So. Sorry southwest
corner. And so he's asking to have that 5.74. Be legitimized. So with respect to your
criteria, the unique characteristic of the property in this case is the existing garage. That's not a usual circumstance to other properties. It's not unusual
that we have a garage that was built under county jurisdiction and came into the city. So that is the circumstance with this
property and really the basis for the request. So that's what's different about this property. This was not self-created. It was a previous
owner that built the garage. And so this was not something that was approved or done by
the applicant. Literal enforcement would deny reasonable use. That's your third criteria. You could you
know, there's 1.76ft difference here. And as I mentioned, you could demolish the garage and then he could rebuild it a
little further north. And code wise, that may be. A reasonable request, but but it's it's staff feels that it may be a
little bit excessive. It may be a little bit harsh. So that's a call we'd like you to make. We felt like demolition and reconstruction might be a
little much for for this property. Criterion for this will not confer a special
privilege. We we do have detached garages allowed in the residential office zoning district this is in. And really this is not a usual circumstance for other
properties in the city. It's not not common to most properties in the city. We rarely see this, this type of thing. It's pretty rare these
days. Somebody builds, you know, somebody place a shed that's pre-built. That's one thing. But when somebody builds a whole building with no permit, it's obviously nobody called
code enforcement. You know, they just found it. I think, Fred, I'm sorry. The Slaters can probably relay that. I don't know, but but it is pretty rare these days that you
see a building, especially in an area as populated as we are built all the way finished before somebody stopped and
stopped them or initiated code action. So it's not a common situation. And then the fifth criterion, the garages existed
for at least almost three years without really any discernible disturbance of property values, stability there. We would
expect that to continue. The reduced setback would probably mostly affect that South property, which is vacant right
now. That would be this this property over, over here. That fronts on Anclote Road. If that's developed or when that's developed, that's also in
residential office in the future that could be buffered somehow. I will say the garage entrance and really the use of it is really on the north side.
There's not a lot there's, you know, not much room. And also the, the activities really on the north side, we feel like it's it's not really a big
impact to them and it really doesn't impact the rest of the surrounding neighborhood. So with that, staff recommends
approval of the reduction in the side yard setback from 7.5ft to 5.74ft. We had two conditions on that. One was to
combine the parcels. We don't need that condition. This was written about a week ago because that has been done. The
second is that the if the variance is granted, the owner would immediately apply for an after the fact building permit and obtain that permit for the
garage structure. Obviously, they will have to do what's called forensic inspections. They'll have to uncover things and, you know, have have the
inspectors confirm that everything is built to Florida building code. So I think I think they have a plan for that which they can speak to. So
this was properly noticed. There were no responses to the notice. So what I'd like is that you concur whether you will hear this or whether it's appropriate to hear it. And
then. Deliberate on an order of decision. Thank you Pat. Thank you. I think what I'd like to do is have the ability to have our members ask you questions
before we do that, I just have one question and then I'll see if my colleagues have. Are you using the term storage shed and
garage interchangeably? No. This is a detached garage. Detached garage, like for a vehicle, vehicle storage. Or it
could be used for vehicle, but I'd like the applicant to do the in the codes when it's a garage. Do they have to have
street access? Yes, and they do. And that's where I was just not sure when you were showing because you said this changed ownership. As we read in the
materials, where was the previous street access? Well, again, this was built without a permit, but it would have been
on Pennsylvania Avenue. The the show you the original. No. So this is the original sheds. We don't have to worry about the street exit, but if you're
calling it a garage that that changes the other parts of. Right. So so this was this yellow line surrounds what was
the parcel? It fronts on Pennsylvania Avenue, which is an unimproved road. So there's no built road there. So yeah, under the city this would not
be able to to be built as a standalone building without improving that road. So I guess, you know, my question as a garage as they move through the
permitting process, will they have to provide street access to Pinellas Avenue? They will have to show that they can drive. Yeah, that there's a
path to drive from Pinellas Avenue to the garage, but it could be, you know, doesn't have to be a driveway. And they do front Pinellas Avenue. Okay.
So that would be part of the ability. And okay, that's what I just wanted us to all be on the same page before. And I know my colleagues are such
good colleagues. I know you all read the material prior to attending tonight. Do any of you have any questions for staff before we say whether or
not we'll proceed for this hearing tonight? I do have some questions. So on the on the
plot there, if you can go back to the one with the multiple right there, that one. So up top there that says
Pennsylvania Avenue. Is that not a road right now? I did not hear what you said before. Yeah. It's it's a it's platted but it was never built. It was never
approved. So I think there are people maybe driving back there, but it's just dirt and vegetation, and the applicant may be able to expand on that. I haven't actually tried to
access that. We do not know if it's an active road or not. If it's not a paved road standards. This is not an active road. So it's a dirt. It could be a dirt
one. Yeah. So and that's under county jurisdiction, that road, that parcel may be landlocked the way it is. It was until the parcel combination was completed yesterday. It was
landlocked. You are correct. And that is lot number four. Now is it is the owner looking to combine what lot. I'm
assuming it's lot number three to the left or just the lots in the yellow outlined in yellow. Just the lots and yellows. Those are the lots that he owns. And it was completed as
combined. It's not no longer to be. It's done. So she's removed that request. And then so by combining them that removes the
7.5ft requirement. No, it only removes the first condition that we recommended. The reason for this, the setback is still
an issue because it's right up against the South property line. And he does not own lot three. In fact, I he can again speak to this, but I think he might
have looked into buying that lot. That would have been a way to solve this problem. But I don't. It looks like he wasn't
successful. I know you went over the review standards. I just want to make a couple of comments on them. So what we're
looking at in the first review standard, what we're looking at is a 1.7ft difference. Yes. In
in that's what we that that's the issue 1.7ft okay. And then the and she wants us to first decide whether or not we'll hear the case or we'll hear the
case to hear it. And then we'll proceed with questions. Okay. I'll wait to wait. So that's what. But you may there may be some other. Do you feel
comfortable enough with what you've heard to at least know whether we're moving forward in hearing the case? Okay. How about you, sir? I'm good. Okay. Do we need to make a motion, or
are you just comfortable with. I don't think just because it's already on our agenda, I think we can proceed. I believe you can just. Okay. Thank you. Make the decision. Okay, so now into
more of the details. Any other questions for Miss Mcniece before we turn it over to hearing from the applicant. So are these questions now. So we
have now said we are going to hear it. Now I can ask the question okay. All right. So okay so back to back to the review standards okay. So it's
a 1.76ft. We did that. And then the special circumstances have obviously not been created by them. It was created by somebody else previously. So that was taken care of. And
then it certainly would deny reasonable use because you would have to demolish it then. So looks like number three is
answered affirmatively. And then the. And then in the in the provisional findings, it said the circumstances described herein are not
generally common to other properties in the city. So so this would not give any special.
You know, privilege to them because you want to use your garage. Okay. And then the the last one, number five says
active is the active use of the garage is oriented away from the southern adjacent parcel. And I guess there was some comments that landscaping could be put up. And if, if, if became an issue maybe down the
road. So that kind of okay. Also. All right. I just wanted to clear it up. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Wood. Do you have any questions for staff? No. I'm good, thank you, Miss Turner. Yes. I just had a few
clarifying questions, Miss Mcniece. So thank you for clarifying that. The parcel has now been combined into one. So
it has. I know there were code enforcement. It was a code enforcement case that's now been resolved with the county. Now that this has been annexed in by the city, does the city
currently have any code enforcement cases against any of this property? The city was directed to monitor the
situation. Code enforcement as well. And. Monitor the situation. Make sure the applicant immediately pursued,
you know, all three of the items that the board wanted them to. But yeah, we would have initiated a code enforcement case if, if if he
had not. So which those three things? One is getting it all into one parcel. They checked that box. The second is coming before us today. And then the
next step from there would be moving forward with the permit after the fact that that you've discussed. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you so much. Please stay tuned. We may have further questions for you later. Sure. And now, Mr. and Mrs. Slater, if you'd like to come before
and just state your name and address for the record and anything you'd like to share with us. Okay. It's Frederick M Slater, 1267 North Pinellas
Avenue, Tarpon Springs, Florida. Thank you. So just to clarify something, Pennsylvania Avenue. It actually it's it's like a it
is a dirt road. It's like a limestone road, more or less like an alley, but right across from lots. And the road goes
all the way behind lots four and five, right behind lots four and five, which are right there. And if you look to the left, when you're looking at
that, you'll see a house right there. Okay. So the previous owner of the garage owned the house. That's right there also. And the only way to get to that house is through that one
access road there. That's the limestone road. Okay, okay. And that all is county. That's county. And all that property
was county at that time. And the other thing, when we purchased a property, we purchased the building knowing
that a building permit was not pulled on it. Okay. That was in violation when we got it. Then we had the survey done and we realized, oh, not only was it
not pulled right, that the setbacks are wrong on it because we had to have a survey done afterwards, and I'm not quite sure why somebody of like
this guy would not put it where it should be, because he's been around for a long time. He's a big plumbing contractor. He builds homes and apartment
complexes and things like that. I don't know how he messed it up. The only thing I can think of is, you know, he's been
working. You know, on North Avenue there. They've been working on all that in front of our house. They just put in a traffic light and everything.
And when they got in there and started doing their survey, they couldn't find the markers. And this was just recently, they were all over that lot to
the north of us trying to find the marker. And they couldn't find it. And I told them, I said, I have one marker on my property that my surveyor says is where it's supposed to be,
and I showed them where it was. And from that they pulled all their different corners or whatever they do. So I'm thinking that part of the problem with the setback and
could have been caused by the markers being so out of place or whatever, because it was all jungle at one time, just a, you
know, overgrown with everything. So I'm thinking that that was it. So what we did is we took we in the beginning, we owned the two lots that are to the
east of it. Of those four and five, we owned those lots. And then when we bought this section with a garage on it, the two lots to the south that
butt up next to that building south of my property, they also we bought those at the same time with with the garage because he owned that also. And
then we, we decided, well, we're going to we want to bring it into Tarpon. We brought it into tarp and annexed into tarp. And we got it combined the whole thing. So it's all
homesteaded now. It's all one homestead. The other the other thing with that. With that property, as you can see,
there's two houses on there. We bought the one house and then we bought the house next to us and redid that. And and now what we're going to do is after, after we're done with all this,
if we get hopefully the variance on the setback, then we'll fence all that in. We've already gone through the
process of getting as built drawings. So that shouldn't be a problem. If this passes whenever it passes, then what I
can do is I can go in and pull a permit for the construction, and from there the inspectors will come in and check it. And then there's other things I'll have to do too. I'm sure when
they get in there they'll say, well, you got to do this, this and that. Whatever the building department decides I got to do it, will do it. When we had
that flood that we had a bunch of trailers loaded with stuff, you know, people collect things
and we had a business, we had an elevator company, and I kept a lot of stuff that I should have just walked away from, but I didn't, you know, the the old man thing. I think what it is,
you know, hold on to stuff. So we went ahead and we held on to stuff and I put them in the trailers. The flood came along and I got rid of probably.
Three quarters of it all, but the rest of it, I stored it in that garage. And then the other part my grandson uses for
working on his. Fancy trucks. He's in the trucks and the four wheel drives raised up and everything like that. So he works on on vehicles in there. We have two granddaughters who
live with us and a grandson that lives with us that we pretty much raised since they were little, little people. But
anyways, that that's our story. And. We're happy to have that property annex. And I'm just hoping that you all can see.
You know, leeway to to let me have that, you know, that little bit of variance there on the on the setback. It would
otherwise. It's going to cost a whole lot of money to fix, fix what I got to do there. Thank you, Mr. Slater. If you'll stay up there, there might be a few
questions for you. Yeah? Yeah. Who would like any questions? I know I have one question. You mentioned the person you bought
the property from. Also owned the house across Pennsylvania. Is that house still an occupied house or is it a vacant house?
He doesn't own it. He sold it to our neighbors, the hutch. I call him Hutch. It's Hutchinson is the neighbor that lives right across the street. So
what if that house is going to be used as a house? Do they have another garage or they just park in the driveway? They
have attached to theirs? They have like a carport. Carport. Okay. Yeah. So they won't they live in there. So they're not going to be coming to your house to continue to use that.
And that's part of the fencing you know. Yeah. No they're not okay. Yeah. It's so will truly be for your homesteaded
property. Yeah okay. And thank you for raising your grandchildren okay. Thank you. Anybody else have anything. No.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Slater. Any comments before we go to make a motion? Do I hear a motion? I would make a motion
to approve with the condition listed with number two, on the staff recommendation of the after the fact building permit to be submitted and obtained
for the garage. And do I hear a second? I'll second. Thank you. Motion made by Miss Turner and seconded by Mr. Grossman. Can I
have roll call, Miss Siegfried? Mr. wood approved, miss Turner approved. Vice chair. Grossman. Yes. Chairperson. Rich. Yes.
Thank you so much. Your variance has been approved, and you can work with our staff. Mcneece. Pat. And she will help you continue to get that ball
rolling. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thanks. Okay, now we're up to board and staff comments. I want to thank Mr.
Grossman for filling in in my absence last month. And I did watch you all on the YouTube stream. Past tense. I do. Okay,
fine. All right. Fine. Anyway, any other and special thanks. I didn't get to meet Miss Siegfried until tonight, so we're happy to have her with us.
And always good to see Pat come back to us. Pat basically trained Ali into this. She let her commission staff for many years. So thank you. Always
good to see you. I do see you items. Sure. Okay. So first item is in our agenda meeting schedule after the public
comments are closed, it suggests we bring the bring it back to the board for consideration. I took that as bring it back to the board for
conversation or discussion. And I was advised by one of the city commissioners that that is not correct, that we should not be discussing it until a motion
and a second is made. So I think we need to clarify what the proper procedure for that is, because what the Commissioner was saying is that
you finish your public comments, call for a motion, get the second, then you can talk about it if you want to. So I guess that if we decided after
talking about it that the motion wasn't good, would have to withdraw the motion. And I don't know the process of that, but I was told that we're not
doing that correctly. And then the second thing is, and we will need a legal, you know, decision on that one. The second thing is, and I did not
know this because Mr. Fuchs had made a was started to make a motion and I kind of said, we're not there yet because I thought we had to do the discussion. And I was advised
that any board member can make a motion and have a second at any time during the process, that you do not have to go through the whole entire process if you feel like, hey,
I'm this is all good, I'm ready to go. I don't need to hear anymore. You can, in the middle of the process, say, I would like to make a motion. I wouldn't say in the middle of the process because with it
being quasi judicial, we have to make sure that the public has a right to speak and all of that. So I wouldn't say at any time, but the attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, I
would guess what I needed, you know, an opinion about. I would say that the presentation would need to be completed and then.
Right. That that would be my my thought is presentation. I believe you are right that the motion should come first before discussion on it and then tweaking it if necessary, or so
on out thereafter. But after the public comment, correct. Because we have sometimes a lot of cases public. For and
against. And before we ever make a motion, we hear the public comment. And there's been times where we've had
significant public comment that has prompted us to want to get clarifying information, either from city staff or the
applicant or both. So that way we can gather as much information as possible to then make an informed decision as to
a motion or. Yeah, I guess that's I'm a little confused about the conversation because I, I always interpreted it as
the the conversation amongst us was after the public comment to make sure that we didn't have further questions or clarification for city staff,
but not like we're debating the whole case. It's more of this is how it was, how I've interpreted it. I guess if it's falling back on Robert's Rules.
But that's how it was presented to me that you do the motion, have a second and then you can discuss it. Do we need we need to clear that up, roll call and then roll call thereafter.
After the discussion. I do not know. I'm looking for clarification on it. Well, I guess you would have to go with our rules of order for the
Board of Adjustments. I don't have them in front of me tonight. You may have them in front of you, but I would think we would need to go in the order of what our rules say,
how to conduct our meeting. And so if our rules say that we do it the way now, the Commissioner may be correct in their handling of Robert's
Rules. I'm not saying that they're incorrect, but I think attorney correct me. Wrong. Our rule of meeting would stand as
our rule of order. Correct. And I'll. And I'll talk to Mr. Salzman about this, and we'll have a definitive answer if if our rules are wrong in our rule
of conduct, because that's how our order was written. If there's errors there, we would want that to be corrected for official rules. But I believe
that they were written as our standing order of of how we operate, you know, serving, you know, as you know, been on the committee on the board many
years and have served as chair. And we have that procedure which has been informed by city staff and the attorneys, you know, with y'all's consultation
and review that does have that order of presentation of of the case by the city staff, the opportunity for the applicant to speak, the opportunity for
public to speak. And then we do ask a lot of clarifying questions. So we gather, which is the idea, I believe, the spirit of why we're here as a quasi judicial board to make a
decision based upon the facts. My hesitancy with going with the strict order of Robert's Rules of Order, which I do
understand, is make the motion and then open up to discussion, is what message could that be sending to our applicants? And then, you know, any public that
might be present thinking they've heard this basic information and now they've made a motion and not understanding and feel they could get very easily quite
agitated of thinking. Now they're making a motion before we've had a chance to state our case to clarify our points, so that that order of operation has given everyone an
opportunity to present all evidence that they have. I like the idea of of the board being able to discuss amongst ourselves, you know, on the record, but at least be able to
discuss amongst ourselves before we make the decision. But that's not the way, apparently it's supposed to go so well. But again, we have to look at what our rule of order
for the Board of Adjustments is, because that would trump Robert's Rules, you know? So that's why I that's why we have that's why I would go back,
because the attorneys were the ones helping us to do that originally. So we can send it back to our attorney to just, you know, for doing something incorrectly. We should get it
corrected. If and you have a copy of that I do at home, but I don't have that has like kind of like the the chair board of adjustment I think I think Andy,
should we have that and we can we can yeah. Consult with with attorney Saltzman on the one point about the motion whether
whether the motion is made for discussion. And then your other point was making a motion at any time, I really kind of wonder if the whoever was
telling you that was referring to quasi-judicial items because the idea, at least with land use and, and all these is that you hear all the evidence.
That's what you and you can correct me if I'm wrong. A very good point in this being a quasi judicial board of commissioners sees all types of items, including quasi judicial,
but I'm not sure where that came from. I've never heard that making a motion middle of quasi judicial, but we will. We
can consult with Attorney Saltzman on that and will report back to you at your next meeting. But we're talking about this. I know one thing that came up a couple meetings ago. When we have the
application here, we're allowed to ask them questions. But if somebody from the audience comes in and they want to make a statement, we're not supposed to interact with them. Correct? Correct. Not supposed to ask
them questions. The public, we're just supposed to hear their testimony to us for or against, but not engage. I just want to clarification. Thank
you. I did have one question that came up after I looked at the case last week, and this has come up in previous cases,
there was some concern by members of the public and discussion amongst the team about someone's view being
affected. Like, and I think I remember correctly and correct me if I'm wrong. And this is back to the legal. But with
property rights as a whole, do not guarantee a view. And I think we've been challenged in the past, like when we start
going down that trail of someone's view, being affected, to kind of get off that trail,
because unless there's specific HOA guidelines that discuss it or a very specific waterway
variance or something that it's pretty pretty slim of a view being protected, your property rights do go up and down, you
know, depending. But right. Not horizontally. So just have to be careful when we start discussing that someone's view will be affected. I think 100%
right, because I had a client who had a condo in Clearwater near the the pathway pathway there, the, the, you know, the
main path in Clearwater. And they built a high rise right in front of her condo and her view gone. So I think you're correct about that. And I mean, you
feel for people because you do you want to have that view that you once had. But if it's we should be we're not restricted by HOA rules. No, no, but I'm
saying there was some conversation about people were concerned that their view would be blocked and there was some agreement, oh, like we understand, you know. And would
that be use like one of our criteria is assume what I'm reasonable. Reasonable use of the property is reasonable. Use that view. Like am I entitled
to have that view? And I guess what I was remembering and watching that is we really shouldn't go there because view in Florida is not like a
property, right? Right. And we've had that. The same properties come before this board three times. And that was part of the concern was it was a vacant lot that someone had.
And the application to build upon. And the neighbors had for many years just kind of taken for granted. This lot will
never be built on. And so here is my view, because this it's a very uniquely shaped lot. And the thought is, well, you know,
kind of like your your condo. If you don't want something built on that vacant piece of property, then you can you can buy that piece of property.
Yeah. So barring that, no one has a guaranteed view, you know, based upon the reasonable use of someone else's property.
Okay. Anybody else have any comments? No. Miss Siegfried, anything. Do we know if we will have a No December meeting? And
I believe it would be an earlier date. The 17th? Yes, it's the 17th. Thank you. I'm
not sure. I don't. Right now, I think we have three things that we currently have on the agenda. Okay. So coming to December. So yeah that was in December. Yeah
I think you do have three cases that went to TRC last last month. Right. So we will see everyone December 17th then and
same place same time. Thank you officer for your presence tonight. Thank you for helping get us in the building. Anybody else okay. Thanksgiving. Happy
Thanksgiving meeting at 718. Thank you ma'am.