6:30 p.m. and I call this meeting to order. Madam Secretary, would you please do a roll call of the board members? Chairperson Grossman here. Miss Turner, present. Mr.
wood here, Mr. Fuchs here. And miss Rich is absent. Okay, so we do not have a full five member board, and I will ask the city attorney to please
advise what happens when we don't have a quorum. So we don't have five member board. So if any of the applicants wants a full board, you certainly can continue your
hearing until we have a full board. That being said, you you need three positive votes out of the four. And if you're turned down, you have to wait a year to reapply. So if anybody
wants to consider a full board, just tell us now. Otherwise we'll move forward with the three cases. I guess we're moving forward, chair. Anybody
want to postpone? Okay. All right. At this time, I would like to remind all people who will be speaking this evening to please speak directly into
the microphone as it assists the staff in getting a clear recording of tonight's proceedings at this time.
Calling up item 2619. Thanks, chair. We have to do the quasi judicial. Oh, sorry. That's all right. Let me let me back up. Yes. Would you please do the
quasi judicial announcement and swearing in of the witnesses? Yes. 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 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 Ordinances, 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
Ordinances, then the board is required by law to find against the applicant. Is there anybody on the board that needs to disclose any ex parte
communication, any. Not ex parte, but for the application on Chesapeake. I live on Chesapeake, but feel I can make a fair and impartial decision
that that's not a problem. Does anybody have other than what you said, is anybody feel like they have a conflict of interest? Okay. If you're going to speak tonight, please raise
your right hand. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm your testimony before the board of adjustment shall be the truth,
so help you. I do thank you so much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Attorney. Now, at this time, I would like to call up item 2619,
which is Hanks. It's a variance to reduce the rear side yard setback for a new for new detached garage with an accessory dwelling unit. 226
North Rose Avenue with the city staff member. Please present this item now. Sure. Ali Keen, interim planning director. The subject property again is
located at the corner of North Rose Avenue and Cypress Street. It's outlined in red here on the screen. All the surrounding zoning is primarily residential, with the exception of City Hall to the north, which is in the
public Semipublic district. The applicants are here today requesting variance approval to reduce the required rear yard setback to allow the construction of a detached garage with an accessory
dwelling unit. This is a look at the proposed site plan. Again, the applicants are looking to construct a new 600 square foot detached garage in the rear of the property. We'll
have a second story accessory dwelling unit, and they are proposing to utilize an existing driveway curb cut that's off of Cypress Street. Utilizing that curb cut does help to preserve the historic
property frontage, and this is a property that's in our historic district, the R 70, a zoning district requires a minimum rear setback of 20ft, which is the pink line here.
And again, the applicants are requesting to reduce that setback to five feet. The property again is in the local historic district. The structure itself is
contributing. Back in September of last year, the applicants went before the Heritage Preservation Board and did receive certificate of appropriateness to partially demolish the historic structure
and then build a new home that utilizes the historic footprint as well as the existing front facade. A part of that application also included the approval of the detached garage and accessory unit that we're
talking about this evening, and then also a pool, which was shown on the site plan. A few considerations with this application. First, the Land
Development Code does have reduced setbacks for certain size detached garages and the R 70, A district. Detached garages that are 300ft■!S in sie or less can have a reduced rear
yard of five feet, but any garage that is larger than that 300ft■!S would have to default back to the R 70 zoning district, which is the case for this application. The code also
allows residential properties to have an Adu on the property. The a D. You can be attached to the existing primary structure or can be a separate structure like it's proposed today. The
code does allow those use to be up to 600ft■!S in size, and that is consistent with what is being requested. When looking at the surrounding context, you'll notice that there is a parcel to the rear of the
property that's 30ft in width. This is a city owned parcel that provides access to some of the surrounding residential homes. One consideration is this does provide some additional separation from the
adjacent property to the east. That does exceed the minimum 20ft. That would typically be required from the rear setback. There are also some existing accessory structures on surrounding properties, two of
which do back up to that Parker Place parcel that do have minimal setbacks, similar to what is being requested. Here
are your criteria and I'm happy to answer questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation. Does the
board have any questions for the city staff? Chairman? I have some questions. So, Miss Keane, can you go back to the slide where you were outlining
the Land Development Code criteria? I think it's there we go. Can you provide some clarification on a couple points? So the code for the
detached garage versus the Adu, would this proposed structure be considered Adu or detached garage or how does that work.
Right. So it's both. So this is kind of pointing out that the code does have some conflicting allowances. So it does allow you to have a detached garage. It's very common to have an accessory dwelling unit as a
part of the detached garage. In this situation in this zoning district, 300ft■!S is what is allotted for detached garage. That's to take advantage of reduced setbacks. You still
have a larger one like they're proposing. It just would have to meet the district setbacks. Accessory dwelling units again could be up to 600ft■!S. So there's a little bit of a disconnect between those two.
So then to follow up on that, the setback for detached garage garages stated at the five feet, which the proposal would meet.
However, it is over the 300ft■!. Correct. So we we have an interesting gray area, right? That's why because it's larger than 300ft■!S and garage
structure. And we call that out specifically in the code. That's why it would have to go back to the default to the R 78 district setbacks. And for the
city owned parcel there and Parker Place, what is the city's intended purpose for that parcel? Is there any
current or future use? So it is currently being used to access some of the surrounding property, specifically this one here. And then also this larger parcel here that fronts Cross Avenue, but they don't have a
driveway from Gross Avenue. I believe it provides access as well to this property. I don't think the city has any intended use besides allowing it to provide access. Typically this
would be a right of way, not an actual designated owned parcel. But in this situation it is a separate parcel, but I believe it will just continue to be used as access, kind of like what our layman would refer to.
Maybe like an alley. Yeah, exactly. Entrance and the the property to the right that you do have highlighted in pink.
That's, I'm assuming the other neighbor. Have we had any communication with any other property owners? We have not received any. Okay. Thank you
ma'am. Any other board members have any questions? I do good evening. Do we know the the age or how long those other structures have? Those ones
that are highlighted in pink have have been there. Do we know what their age is? I do not know how long they've been there. A lot of these properties are historic properties, so some of the
structures may have been constructed predating the code. Some may have not. I just don't know the the full detailed history of all of the surrounding properties. Thank
you. Okay. I do have some questions as well. So on page
two of four of the report, it states that the LDC section 71 allows one Adu up to 600ft■!S. s that in addition to the garage,
like the garage can have the 600ft■!S and the Adu can have 600ft■!S as well. Because it's all one structure, you have to look at it as a whole. So the
Adu is 600ft■!S. They're proposing the structure to be 600ft■!S. So can utilize that full second story. But because it's one structure, you have to look at it as a whole. So you
can't just because they're doing an accessory dwelling unit doesn't get them out of the setback requirements for the detached garage that's larger. And just to provide a little more clarification on that, if they were only doing
accessory dwelling unit, it wasn't a garage. We would look to the R 78 district setbacks. So you wouldn't even have to consider that as a. Okay, so
this is a two story garage and so does, does the does it need to be 600 square foot in total for the two stories? In other words, 303 hundred. We look at
the footprint to determine the size. So the structure itself would have to be no larger than 600ft■!S. Or if, say, the structure was larger, the accessory dwelling unit itself,
the living area could not exceed 600ft■!S. Okay. Because.I guess, can you go back to the
to the slide where it showed the pool and everything. So the cut out area, there's you have the blue area, which is showing the garage and Adu, and then
there's a cut out area in it. We do we know the size of that cut out area because the Adu. It's 2025ft across the top. And
then coming down it's 18 and 12 which is 30. But we can't calculate the square footage of the of the building because there's, I don't know where
maybe you could show me where it is. The, the size, the width of that cut out. I don't see it labeled here. It might be underneath my cover that I have here, but I can have the
applicant talk to that specific detail. All right. Because the the 25 by 30 is 750ft■!S. So if
that cut out were, let's say nine feet wide, that'd be 162ft. Then it would fit in, it'd be fine. But you have two floors
here. Now as a second story, does that go over the cut out or is the cut out two stories up? So regardless of how it's situated, the accessory dwelling unit could not exceed
that maximum size. They would have to ask for another variance to allow a larger accessory. So. So you're only using the footprint, correct.
Not so if it was three stories or four stories it wouldn't matter. You're only using the 600ft■!S as the footprint. Doesn't matter how many stories it is. So the yeah, the 600ft■!S is pertaining to the accessory
dwelling unit living area. The applicant indicated that it was a 600 square foot structure. So that's why we have it labeled that way. But they couldn't exceed the the size allotment that the code allows. And all
of those fine details are verified during the permitting stage. So we would verify that it meets all the size requirements and it's consistent with whatever. If the variance were to be
approved. Okay. All right. Thank you. So to follow up on Chairman Grossman's questions there. So we're going off of
the footprint, which is under 600ft■!S. So we're going to confirm with the applicant that that that footprint itself is
in that 600 range, 600 mark. The garages floor one Adu is floor two. Because you're saying talking living area.
We're not living in our garage. Yes. Theoretically correct. Yeah. If they wanted the entire structure to be used for living area, then we'd calculate all of that square footage. That would be a different story.
Yeah, but that is not what the applicant has presented. Not. No. The application indicates it's the second story. Thank you, Miss Keane. Yes. The other buildings that you had highlighted in pink. Can you go
back to that for a second? Sure. So when we're looking at those buildings, are those garages also or other properties that are also or are those garages
on the other properties? Some of them, I believe are garages. I don't know if all of them are utilizes garages. They're just outbuildings that we highlighted based off the aerial. And they all seem like they're, they got a variance
based on the size of those. They look a little bit bigger than 300ft■!S. It really depends on when they were actually constructed, if a variance was required at that time. So some may have required a variance.
Some may predate the actual code requirements. Okay. Thank you. I have one follow up. The.
Additional information in the packet shows a lot of different properties with ADUs in it. Is that was that the purpose of
these. So I think you're referring to an what the applicant submitted as supplemental material. I don't know if they're all ADUs. I think he was trying to point out just the surrounding
accessory structures, but they can clarify that for you. But that that neighborhood has a lot of garages and accessory structures and pretty common in that area. It's, it's common in
most residential areas. Yes. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation and answering those questions. At
this time, I'd like to call up the applicant to make your presentation if you wish to do so. When you get to the podium, please state your name and
address for the record. Also, when you are finished making your presentation, please stay at the podium in case any of the board members have any questions for you. Okay. My
name is Daniel Edgel. I'm at 123 East Tarpon Avenue. I'm the architect for the client here. I generated the packet that you have in front of you there. I
have no additional content to provide today. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Anybody have any
questions? Yes, sir. I'm good. Okay. All right. Nobody has any questions for you. All right.
Thank you. All right. At this time, I'd like to call. Excuse me. All right. You'll be seated.
All right. So at this time, we will call for public comment. Is there any public comment to
be made on this issue? Okay. As there are no public comments, I'm now closing the public comment segment. At this time. I would like to bring the item back to the board for
discussion. Does the board have any comments? No comments, but I can make a motion. I have I have comments, anybody else
have comments? No comments. Okay, I do, I do have some comments. I just I don't have any issue with the building,
the building and the two stories and all that. The only thing I want to know is I just want to make sure what we're voting on. So the it, I just
would like to, to firm up because I did some measurements on this. I just want to. If we make a motion, I think we should include that this
footprint is not over 600ft■!S, because it appears that it has a chance of being over 600ft■!S. And I would just like to include that in the motion that
because we can't measure it out from the information that we have here, my understanding is that that was already approved through their permitting process. So that's already been
lined out. Is that accurate? Ali, you you can put a condition on there to to lock in that the footprint doesn't exceed that, that size. The Heritage Preservation Preservation Board doesn't
necessarily have detailed plans. They get something similar to this. They're more so looking at the historic aspect of the structure being their general location. So they didn't have the specific details either. So
if you want to place a condition on the approval, you can do so. Okay. I just want to make sure that we're not saying yes to this piece of paper. And this piece of paper is over 600
square foot, and we just did something we shouldn't do. But and on that, so if the city staff and maybe the attorney provide that point of clarification, say, if we did approve this because we're
being asked to approve for the rear setback, if it did go to, you know, through the permitting process and sandbar architecture, which we know is
a fine firm, couldn't imagine them doing it. But if they came and submitted plans to us, to the city for 900 square foot, that's kicked out. Correct. It
would be inconsistent with what was presented to the board for approval. Okay. I mean, your variance is based on a 600 square foot. So you can either
add it as a condition or I mean, frankly, the variance is based on that. So if they wanted to do something more, they would have to come back for for another variance. For another
variance. Thank you. Thank you sir. Okay. All right. So. All right. So all board comments no other comments from the board.
All right. So board comments are now closed. I would like to ask the board for a motion on this item. I would like to make a motion to approve for the
five yard, five foot rear yard setback and for the footprint not to exceed 600ft■!S, as statd in code. Do I have a second?
I'll second. Madam Secretary, would you please do a roll call? Mr. Fuchs approve. Mr. Would approve. Mr. Miss Turner, approve. Chairperson Grossman,
approve. Well, congratulations. Your application request has been approved. Okay. All right.
At this time, I'm calling up the next item on the agenda. This would be item 2620 Yovich.
And that is a variance to reduce the side yard setback for the purpose of enclosing a second story deck at 1514
Riverside Drive. And I would call on the city staff member to make a presentation. Okay. Again, this property is located off of Riverside Drive. It's outlined in red. The
surrounding properties are all within the 100 single family residential district. There is some multi-family residential zoning further to the west. Again, the applicants are here
to request a variance to reduce the required side yard setback. And this is for the purpose of enclosing existing second story deck. The R 100 zoning district
requires a minimum side yard setback of ten feet, with a total of 25ft for both sides. Again, the applicants are looking to enclose an existing second story deck, which is in
the area shaded here in orange, and that has a setback of 7.2ft. This would result in a not meeting the ten foot minimum, but it would exceed the total side yard setback requirement
of 25ft. The property was platted in 1925. It is a nonconforming lot of record. It does not meet the minimum lot width, which is 75ft in the R 100 district. This property is
about 12 12.5ft narrower than what would be required if it were platted today. The home was constructed in 1971 that also predates the current Land development code. At the time
the home was constructed, there was a provision in the Land Development Code that did allow balconies to encroach up to 3.5ft into a side yard, which is likely how the original deck
was allowed when it was built. These are some proposed elevations of the project. The applicants recently enclosed a identical deck on the opposite side of the home, which is what
you see here in the image. They're looking to mimic that on the north side or the west side of the property. And here are your criteria, and I'm
happy to answer questions. Okay. Thank you for your presentation. Does the board have any questions for the city staff, miss Keane? Did they need a
variance for their side? Looks like they had plenty of room. So the other side did not require variance because it met the minimum ten foot. And it also exceeded the 25 total. So
because they're enclosing this now that's what's triggering the the setback variance. Okay. Thank you. So essentially if we went back 55 years and they
built it skoch there to the left, we wouldn't be sitting here today. Correct? Right. Yes.
That's how you look at it. And it still does meet the combined 25 foot. It's just the 7.2
versus the ten, correct? Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? I have one question. I'm sorry.
Okay. Can you tell me what what is the minimum width of the lot supposed to be? It's non-conforming. If it were plotted today would be 75ft 75.
Thank you. Okay. All right. Anyone else have any other questions? I do not have questions. All right. Thank you very much for your presentation.
We appreciate that. At this time, I'd like to call up the applicant to make your presentation if you wish to do so. We don't need to know. You
don't have to. You do not have to make a presentation if you don't want to. Okay. All right. At this time, I'll call on the board. We don't have any
questions. We don't have a presentation. All right. Okay. So at this time, I'd like to call for public comment. Is there any public comment on
this issue? All right. There's no public comments. I'm now closing the public comment segment. At this time. I'd like to bring the item back to the board for discussion. Does the
board have any comments? I just a point of clarification for Miss Keane. Was there any communication from any neighbors regarding this
application? No, we did not receive any. Thank you. And any other board member commentary. I guess I'd just like to point out that, you know, if it was a conforming size lot, we'd have
whatever, 12.5 extra feet to play with here. Right. And so when we're taking that into consideration, this again, wouldn't be an issue based on the conformity of the lot. And
so they're a bit constrained with space anyway. And I think that that's a germane point to bring up for for this
discussion. I agree. Everybody good. All right. As board comments at this time I'd like to excuse me as a board
comments are now and I'll close board comment section. And I would like to ask the board for a motion on this item. I'll make a motion for approval.
I'll second Madam Secretary, you please do a roll call. Mr. Fuchs Mr. Would approve. Miss Turner, approve. Chairperson Grossman, approve. Well,
congratulations. Your application request has been approved. Okay, now I'll be
bringing up the last item on the agenda for this evening.
Okay. We have item number 26-21, and this is a variance to reduce side yard setbacks for the purpose of constructing a
new single family home. 739 Chesapeake Drive. I'd like to ask the city staff to do their presentation at this time. Okay.
Property again is off of Chesapeake Drive. All the properties in this area in the are 100 single family residential zoning district. The applicants are requesting variance approval to reduce the
side yard setback for both sides of the property. This is for the purpose of demolishing the existing home and constructing a new single family residence on the property. Again, the R 100
zoning district requires a minimum side yard setback of ten feet, with a total of 25ft for both sides. The applicants are requesting to reduce that side setback for the new home that would be constructed to
eight feet, which results in a total side yard of 16ft. There are a few non-conforming situations on this property for your consideration. First are the R 100 lot standards. Again,
this is a property that was platted prior to having zoning in the city. It was platted in 1925. The R 100 district today would require a lot to be a
minimum of 10,000ft■!S in size. This property is just about 6700ft■!S in area. It would also require the lot width to be a minimum of 75ft, and this site has an average lot width of
52ft. It's also somewhat of an irregularly shaped lot, being that it's wider along Chesapeake and narrows down as it gets closer to the bayou. The existing home that's on the
property also has non-conforming setbacks. The front setback is currently just over seven feet. The minimum required today would be 25ft in the R 100 district, and the
current side setback to the south is six feet and the north is just over nine feet, which results in a total of just over 15ft for both sides. So although the applicant is requesting to reduce the side
yards for the construction of the new home, the new home will meet the minimum front yard setback of 25ft. It would also lessen the nonconformity that you see on the south side, and
it also lessens the total combined side yard non-conforming setback. Again, here's your criteria and I'll turn it back to you for questions. Okay. Thank you for
your presentation. Does the board have any questions for city staff? I do, is there anything in the code that limits the size of the structure on a lot by like a
percentage of square footage of the lot or anything of that nature? We don't have anything in these districts that limit lot coverage. Okay. Thank you.
Any other board members? Okay, I have one clarification item on the justification from the applicant. I think the applicant states that the home
sits on lot currently has eight foot wide setbacks. When it's confirmed that they do not have eight foot wide setbacks. Right. Currently the current setbacks.
Yes. So if you the current the survey has because it's angled, there's varying setbacks along the side. So I took the closest one on the north is nine, a little over nine feet. And then
six feet to the south is the closest points according to the survey that was provided. So so the side setbacks are was a six foot and a nine foot. Okay. So
I just want to clarify that this is not the justification. Wording is not correct. Right. Yeah. I think it's just worded a little bit different. Okay.
Thank you. All right. Appreciate your presentation and answering the questions. At this time, I'd like to call up the applicant to make your presentation if you wish to do
so. When you get to the podium, please state your name and address for the record. Also, when you are finished making your presentation, please stay at the podium in case any of the board members have any
questions for you. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Francis Leppla, the applicant of the property. I just want to state that my husband and I have dreamed of retiring on the
water. And over the past year, we've looked at probably 60 or 70 different properties throughout the Tampa Bay area and have contemplated offers
and have dreamed of what our future might look like after retirement. When we originally came to look at this particular property, we fell in love with it. Not because the community is so lovely, but because when
we were looking at it, the neighbors came out. They introduced themselves. It felt very homey. It felt great. It felt like the place we wanted to be at the time. We were looking at the existing
structure, trying to determine whether or not we could remodel it. The current structures in severe disrepair. It was remodeled. I'm not sure if it was even done to code. It's
built basically as a multi-family house in the interior. I don't know if that's public. It's just weird. So our goal was to raise
everybody's property value to build something that's brand new, that stays as close within the existing footprint as possible, knowing that it is a non-conforming lot. And we
still dream and hope that we can do that. Okay. Thank you for your presentation. At this time, I would like to call on the board to see if they have
any questions for the applicant. Nope, I have none. Okay. I don't have any either. Thank you very much. You may now be
seated. At this time, I would like to call for any public comment on this item. Okay. Hi,
my name is Craig Lund. Seven 3 or 7 four three Chesapeake. I am the owner of the property directly to the north of this property. Although I can
appreciate the idea of their their variance, I needed to let you know that the property line that was currently submitted with their survey is under
dispute. My home has had surveys ranging from when it was built in 1953, all the way to today, which put occupancy
along that line that you can see towards the bottom of that yellow line. I have surveys done for you today. I'm sorry I couldn't get them into the
record previously because they were just done like about 4:00 this afternoon. So I can show you this is the as occupied
city attorney, we cannot take any additional evidence at this time. Can we go to. Are we able
to distribute them for the reconsideration just for. It's not part of the competent, substantial evidence, but it's
demonstrative. Okay. My apologies. Grab the wrong tab.
These blocks are outside. Are. Okay. I'm sorry. These are the
rights. So this actually does is show the occupancy line that's been there. I've owned the property since 2005. So for
20 some odd years now, the property that the house was built in 1953. So it's been there for 73 years, obviously platted in 1925, which wasn't
the best plat in the world so far. I don't think anybody's been able to find the PRM, the the permanent marker at the end of the block to measure from.
We've had several surveys done. All of them have have jibed with the survey that I've just given, which shows occupation, which is that slash line
underneath the yellow line on the top there, which would be the north side. So what this is going to mean from my
perspective from, for the the variances is that if they're running off the property line that was in their survey that they presented to you, that variance is going to mean that
they're going to be it's going to be from a different line because we're going to move for occupation. So I don't know how that works. My, my legal
counsel sort of handling that part, but as it turns out, with their property line is it is like directly touching the corner of my building. So I one
side. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. It's going to be a matter anyway. Thank you, thank you. Thank you for your comments. You can be
seated. Are there any other public comments to be made? Good evening Carol. Make it 735 Chesapeake Drive. I'm the
neighbor with my husband directly to the south of this property. We have no problem with the eight foot variance,
but I do want to state that on the the diagram up there. I just want to make sure that the eight foot variance is from the property line and not from our
fence, which we inherited when we bought our property. And there is a space between our fence and the property line. As
you can see on the diagram. So I just want to make sure that when the permit is done, that the eight foot is from their property line and not our fence.
Okay. All right. Thank you, city Attorney. If there's a issue that is brought up in this meeting regarding maybe an
error in that, how do we address that, that that I mean, that's for documentation. Ultimately, that's a matter that might be decided in the
courts or certainly when we do our final reviews. I mean, everything that we have submitted, we look at. But if the court rules about the property line changes, well,
that could change the effect of any kind of variance, because the variance has to be based on the facts that came through to you. Your approval of the variance is based on the competent, substantial evidence
that's given to you. And if you were to approve it, then it's based on those diagrams. It turns out to be different and they may end up having to come back before you. Thank you
ma'am, may I ask Chairman Grossman for the attorney the question regarding that for clarification? So, as Mr. Lunt said, you know, there seems to be some discrepancy between Mr.
Lunt survey and the applicant's survey. And of course, I don't think anyone, the applicant and certainly Mr. Lunt, don't want, you know, a new home
constructed touching his home. That's not appropriate. If we were to have a motion to
approve a variance of an eight foot setback from the, you know, the property line north, the north and the south property line north property line
pending final resolution in any future court proceedings prior to final permitting. The answer,
I would say the answer to that is no. You could make it based on the documentation that's presented to you. So if this documentation turns out to be
incorrect, then the variance would not be approved. I mean, I can't come and ask for a variance and then say, oh yeah, by the way, it was, it's much
smaller, right? So that you're giving me something that I'm not entitled to. So you're basing it on this. If it turns out that it's incorrect, then they would have to come back
for if if they could come back for variance, depending on what the side survey show. So the, the building official wouldn't
go forward with approvals. If there's an issue like that. So and if I help me make sure I'm understanding Mr. Lunt's, the
information that he presented, that he is stating that he has surveys that are showing the property line is actually, in
fact. Further to the north or further to the south. What are we what were we saying? Is that something that we can ask for clarification from Mr. Lunt or
the documentation that he's provided to Miss Keane? So I I'm assuming that he's saying that the property line is further to the to the south because it's there's less room
essentially than eight feet. But based on the survey, it's I, I can't tell the difference between the survey that were provided by the applicant and this survey, because it doesn't
show the structures on the adjacent property. So I don't know how far it states the structure is from that property line that's on here, that's on the applicant's property to determine whether or not
they're they're accurate. I would have to I'd have to look closer to see if we can determine that. But typically when we have these things come up, it is a civil matter between the property owners to determine the variance, like
Mr. Solomon said, is for eight feet from the presented information. And just for clarity, the the setbacks are always measured from the property line. I just wanted to
provide clarification for Miss Pickett. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other public
comments? No. Come on. The applicant has the ability to come forward and refute anything that was presented in public comments. This chair, just so you know. Okay. Thank
you. Okay. Sorry. From the applicant again. So we have actually had the survey done three times. When we first learned that our neighbor thought that there may have
been some conflict, we actually had our survey company come back out because we wanted, in very good faith to work together to come to an amicable solution. The survey that we
hired actually brought out three senior surveyors are very renowned survey company, and they just said, this, this is it. I mean, we're all in agreement. This is the line to
us. It is our ideal to keep the home as close to the existing structure footprint as possible. I mean, if that means we make it smaller, what, you know,
whatever we need to do to make it work. Because remodeling is not an option. And unfortunately, anything to do with the current code would make the lot essentially
completely non buildable. So I don't know if that helps, but I learned of all of this tonight when we walked in here. Otherwise I would have had the architect and everybody else. We just didn't think it was
going to be an issue because of the existing property. Okay. Thank you for that. Additional information. Do I stay for questions? Yeah, I had a clarifying question for the applicant. Oh hang on. I'm
sorry. Go ahead. She can. She can because it's the applicant. Okay. Sorry. So you had you had mentioned that your intention, which is presented in your
application here, is to keep this, this footprint does seem very much in line with the existing homes footprint, with the exception of. Now you do
have a larger setback at the front because as we know, the current home setback is not in compliance. So you're not
looking to have something dramatically larger on the width. Not at all. No. Yeah. Thank you. Doing as little with the width as we possibly can.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any any other board members have questions for the applicant. Okay. Thank you, thank you. Are
there any other public comments? Okay. I'm now closing the public comment segment. At this time, I would like to bring the item back to the board for discussion. Does the board have
any comments? I do, if I may. So just for a point of clarification, Ali, on there's a dark line there that goes around the outside. Yeah, that darker line there. Can you tell
me what that represents that's showing their setback, the proposed setback line. So this is showing eight feet along here. Yeah, 25 and then 30 from the back. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. And the
point that I wanted to make was when looking at the existing structure and the proposed structure, is that where those, you know, where those those setbacks are at their, their
smallest amount are not in the same place. So I think it's important to distinguish that, you know, the 9.2ft on the current structure is quite a
bit farther up the property than the eight foot on the other. And so I don't know what the distance is at that exact point, but it looks to be quite similar to to nine feet at that
same spot as well. And so from the point of, you know, stated, you know, where there would be more, for lack of a better term,
intrusion, inclusion onto the property next door. I don't know that that necessarily exists because those points aren't the same. I understand what I'm saying. Like the eight
feet is much further back on the proposed closer to the water than where the 9.2ft is on the current structure. And so not knowing what that is.
But I think if you look at that particular bit there, you can see just north of whatever that that carve out that that box on the top of the, on the top of
that property line is, is where that 9.2 is in the current structure. And if you look at that, you can see that there's a bit of distance between that setback line and where the proposed structure is. Into my
estimation, it's probably very close to what currently exists. And so I just as I noticed that, I felt compelled to share with you all as well. And, and feel
free to make your own observations on it, but I, I did feel that that was again, a relevant point. Miss Keane, can you go to. I believe there is a different. This is the existing
one. Yes. So, you know, as stated, where the existing home footprint is closer to the street as opposed to the
proposed. That's going over closer to the bayou. And we know it's a pie shaped lot living on the street. I can say,
you know, every lot on the street is unique and presents
its own opportunity. When I look at this, I just see that we're looking at if they made all the medal standards and it
seems like they did. And also we're going by this evidence, regardless of what's being presented right now. So I'm kind of like taking all that
into consideration. Okay. Any other comments from the board? All right. As all board comments are now closed, I would like to ask the board for
a motion on this item. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second it. Madam Secretary, would you please do a roll call?
Mr. Fuchs approve. Mr. would approve. Miss Turner, approve. Chairperson Grossman, approve. Well, congratulations. Your
application request has been approved. Okay, that closes the
applicant section. Are there any minutes to approve from previous meetings? Yes, we do have three sets of minutes for
you to approve. We have November, December, and I believe it was also March. Okay. Does anyone have any corrections on the previous
minutes? All right. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes from the previous meetings? I guess we can do it as a group
approval if you want to or separately. But do I have a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve. November 25th. December 25th. March 20th
six minutes. Do I have a second? I'll second. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Mr. Fuchs approve. Mr. would approve. Miss Turner, approve.
Chairperson Grossman, approve. Okay. Staff. Any comments or announcements? Sure, I have two. First, we do have one case on
June's meeting, so everyone mark your calendars. June 24th. There's one application, and I just want to make you aware that last night the commission approved a series of amendments
to our Land Development Code. And a lot of those kind of address several variances that you guys see every day. So some of the standards standards have changed to help remedy those.
Some I was going to point out is for pools, we removed some restrictions as far as separation between the screen enclosure and the water's edge. That's a very common variance that's come before you. Some of
the setbacks have been adjusted, allowing, you know, a screening closure to have a hard roof, certain encroachment that we've added those to kind of justify some of the variances. Another
one is regarding our 100 setbacks. As you probably notice, a lot of variances are for the R 100 district. And there are a lot of non-conforming properties in the city. So we've combined
essentially the R 100 and R 100 A zones and are utilizing the R 100 A setbacks are just slightly smaller, a little more consistent. And then the other
one that is my favorite, we are able to now basically recognize nonconforming lots of record without coming to you all for a variance approval for someone to build on one. They still have to, you know, we still
have to verify that it's, you know, a legal lot of record is not in violation, but they don't have to come here if they own the lot next door. So there's a lot of other updates that we did in there that we're
excited about. But I just want to make you aware that you may not see some of the most common ones anymore. That's all I have. Okay, okay. Thank you very much. Does the board have any
comments or announcements? Loving the nonconforming lot of record one. It's like it's platted in 1924. Come on, let's go. Very cool. Yeah. Any other
comments or announcements from the board? All right. At this time I am adjourning the May 27th, 2026, City of Tarpon
Springs Board of Adjustment meeting at 7:23 p.m.