They seem to just swell, especially in the rainy season when they la just go behavior
and stuff because they. Just so. Want to call this meeting of the Board of Adjustment in the city of Tarpon Springs to order.
Tonight is Wednesday, September 24th, 6:30 p.m. here in the Tarpon Springs City Hall. I now ask our secretary to do the
roll call. Miss Roach, present, miss Turner. Present. Mr. Grossman. Present. Mr. would present. Mr. Fuchs is out.
Thank you. Because this is a quasi judicial process here tonight I'm going to ask that our attorney present makes the quasi judicial announcement.
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 board. Are there any conflicts, any ex parte communication I do have? I just want to put one thing on the record. The the first
application. I personally live not that far away, but it's not I'm not. I don't live next to or adjoining and I don't know any of the parties. So I just
want to put on the record that, you know, I'm in the area but not that close and I don't know anybody and there's no conflict in that situation. No, sir. To the applicants. We have four members tonight of the board.
The board is made up of five members. Any applicant can request to continue this particular hearing. Waiting for five member board. I would have
to advise you that next month. It looks like we're only going to have a four member board, so it probably would be pushed until November. We currently do not have alternates for this
board, so if anybody any applicant is requesting a full board you need to let us know. Now, once you go forward then you're agreeing to a four
member board, which requires a 3 to 1 vote as a minimum to to have your applicant application approved. Is there anybody that wishes to continue their
application? Okay. If you're going to speak tonight, you need to be sworn in. 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? Thank you, thank you. Thank you very much. And
thank you all for coming tonight. The first application that we're going to hear tonight is application 25 Dash 52, a variance to allow a
nonconforming lot of record to be built upon its east side of Eunice Drive, approximately 211ft south of the Bayshore Drive intersection, or lot 17
of Ferguson's Estates, block two. I'd ask now that Miss Keane give her presentation for the city. Yes, Ali Keane, with the planning and Zoning
Department principal planner. Again, the property is outlined here in red and is located along Eunice Drive. It's located off of the unimproved portion of Eunice Drive. This
property, and most of the properties in the surrounding area are within the are 100 single family residential zoning district. There is, some are 100 a zoning to the west of
the site that's also single family zoning. The applicant is requesting variance approval to allow a nonconforming lot of record, which is lot 17 that is under common ownership with an
adjacent property, which is lot 11 to the east to be a separate, buildable lot. The Land Development Code states that if at any time the owner of a nonconforming lot of record owns adjoining land, that the
lots be combined in order to meet the minimum lot requirements. In this case, the R 100 zoning district has a minimum lot area requirement of 10,000ft■!S, and the subject
property is approximately 9750ft■!S in size. The property does meet the minimum lot depth and width requirements. This
property was originally platted back in 1953 as a part of the Ferguson Estates subdivision. The property was zoned R1A at that time, and it did conform to the minimum Lot standards
that were in place. In 1976, a new Land Development Code went into effect, and it placed the property into the R 100 zoning district. And that is where the 10,000 square foot minimum lot
area came into play, and the lot became non-conforming at that time. In 1990, our current land development code came into play, and the property remains in the R 100 zoning district,
and the property continues to be non-conforming in lot area. With regard to common ownership, according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser
records. Lots 17 and lot 11, again to the east, just this lot here have been in common ownership since 1995. This is a
survey of the subject property. There's an existing home on lot 11 that does Front Bayshore Drive. The existing home was built back in 1955. This does predate when the lots went into
common ownership, which again was in 1995. If the subject property was split off onto a separate, buildable lot, the existing home would still conform with the minimum rear
yard setback. In R 100, which is 30ft. The home would maintain approximately 45.5ft rear setback, which is shown here. As I mentioned earlier,
this property fronts the unimproved portion of Eunice Drive. If the board chooses to approve the request before you at the time the lot develops, the Eunice drive would have to
be extended. The entire frontage of the lot, and it would have to meet the minimum city standards, and it would be at the expense of the developer. So when the property would come in for building permit
requirements, they would have to show compliance with the standards and they would have to build the road. And at that time. These are your standards for the nonconforming lot of
record request. And although the requirement to extend the road is in our code and required regardless, just to reinforce that fact, we did have a staff recommended
condition of approval, which is shown here. Just outlining that. With that, I'm happy to answer questions before I open it up to questions. My fellow board
members, could I just ask clarification in the application the person was requesting to separate the lots as well as the variance? Does
this board handle the separation of the lots as well? So what what you're essentially approving is to allow or looking at the criteria to
determine if it meets meet those criteria for lot 17 to be a separate buildable lot. If that's the case, then the applicant has to go through the process of splitting the lots.
And that happens in a different setting. Okay. So that's handled by the city in a different department that you'd help them with. Right. City. And it goes to the county and they have to work with the
surveyor to have that taken care of. Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Thank you very much. Anybody have questions? Yes, Mr. Wood, so they have to build a road out to that lot. 17 if they separate it. Correct.
Right. They'd have to extend Eunice drive. My assumption is they probably would extend it from this portion here to the north. I suppose they could potentially go from Bayshore
down. It depends, but that would be determined at the time they go to build. So other, other lots that are also landlocked that would benefit from that road. I'm sorry. Is there other lots adjacent to
lot 17 that would benefit from that road? Also, there is an adjacent lot here that's undeveloped and may be under common ownership with one of these properties, but there is
one lot that's not developed at this time. But right now, the other lot, I mean, there's other lots on Eunice that could, if it was, went to Bayshore. Yes, they could benefit from it.
But right now, lot 17, in this lot to the north are the only two that don't have road frontage. Thank you. Miss Turner. Question a point of
clarification on the requirements for the R 100 district. District versus the. The data on the subject property was were numbers
transposed here? Because you're saying. There were some were saying that the lot on the following page lot depth of
100ft and width of 75ft was width and depth on the site. So here versus the next page which is site history in 19. Yeah,
right here in 1976. I have a feeling the 175 were transposed. Oh, did I say a lot? Width is. So the minimum requirements in R 100 is the 10,000 square foot
lot area. Lot width is 75ft and lot depth is 100ft. Okay, those were flip flop. Yes I did gotcha okay. So then we're really just looking for the variance for the lot area
because it's 250ft square feet shy. Yes. My apologies. Yes. The lot depth requirement is 100 and lot width is 75. The lot does meet those two. It's
just the lot area. It's just the being about 250ft■!S under e requirement. Yes, yes. Thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. Clarifying. Thank you. That was my only question.
Thank you. Yes, Mr. Grossman. So to clarify, these two lots are under current ownership right now. When the second lot was purchased, it doesn't
remain a separate lot. It if they're adjoining it goes to one. It makes one lot then. So the how the code is written it
is basically says that it could be two separate lots. In some cases people by adjoining lots and they'll combine them for tax purposes and or they'll combine them and get rid of the
interior lot line to make it one piece. Sometimes they'll keep them separate, however, to if they want to go and build on it and have it be separate and have like a home on the vacant
piece. Our code if it's non-conforming, the code says, hey, you bought a non-conforming lot or this is a non-conforming lot, you need to combine it with your other lot
to make it conforming. That's basically how it's written. But the code also provides this process for you to review it, to determine how is that
nonconforming lot created? Was it made in a in any sort of violation. And it lets you to make that determination whether or not it could be separate on its own. So so these two are
really just two separate lot that happen to be adjoining with similar ownership. They were originally platted as two separate lots. And then this property owner owns both of them. In 1995 it was under
different ownership than the current property owner. When he went to buy it, he bought both of them together. Okay, so a
question on the application on page 18. One of the justifications it says plot 1711 are currently one property
and we are requesting to split them. Again, the variance is that each lot would consist of 97 50ft■!S. So by splitting the
lots, is it making the is it making lot 11 non-conforming. Now is that going to 1997 50. Is it 10,000 now it. So that
would be the size of this property. But really where the focus is on the unimproved property, this is already developed. There's already a home there. It's already considered non-conforming in
that that sense really it's the focus is building on a piece of property that has nothing on it now. Okay. So they'll essentially be the same in lot
area. And then how the split is reflects the historic lot layout and how it was originally platted. So what we're voting on tonight, what
will not make the primary lot non-conforming, then it will leave it in its same configuration. Okay, I have one more question, if I may. Yes,
Miss Turner, on the if as a visual aid on the site history slide, which shows the rough property lines of the various
lots on Eunice and Bayshore, are we correct in assuming that many of these lots are probably also non-conforming since
platted 1953? And yes, I won't say that all of them are, but yes, there are several. So it's.
Granting the ability to build on this as a nonconforming lot of record would be consistent with the area in which it's located. The lots are built
upon. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, Miss Keen. I'd like to call now upon the applicant, if you're present, to please come forward. And if
when you're at the microphone, if you could state your name and address for the record. Hello, my name is echo Shepherd. I live at 700 South Florida
Avenue, Tarpon Springs. Thank you. Anything you'd like to share with us tonight? Yes. There was actually a mistake of words in the application a lot.
11 is 10,000ft■!S. So it is just lot 17 that it has needs the variance. Thank you. That's it. That's everything. That's everything okay. Thank you for
being here. Does anyone on the board have any questions for the applicant. So you might want to stay up there just in case. So just yeah just to follow up. So lot 11 is
10,000ft■!S. That's going to remain 10,000ft■!S. Yes. Thank . Anybody else anyone else have any questions for applicant. No. Thank you so much. Is there
anyone from the public who would like to speak in favor or opposition to this application? Okay, I'll take this gentleman first. If you'd come and state
your name and address. Thank you. My name is Keith Vaughn. I live with my wife at 18 818 Eunice Drive. So I'm the lot
right next to where the current pavement ends. And then the unimproved part starts. We've been there over three years. One of our reasons for being
attracted to the neighborhood in this area was that the house that we bought and we live in was at the end of a road. And so it was a peaceful place. It had the classic Florida look.
So we moved from Georgia to here and very happy with the neighborhood in the area. And so currently we are at the end of the paved area in the area
past us where lot 17 is, is the unimproved area of Eunice Drive. When we looked at the property and decided to buy it, we checked about the adjacent
properties and as noted, it was non-conforming, so we didn't have a concern about it being built upon in our ability to have the end of the road, to
give us that extra privacy and and peace that we enjoyed was a positive in our decision for to moving forward. Since we've been there, the owner of the
lot. One day I saw he had a worker that was clearing to the unimproved area and I wasn't sure what was going on. So when I checked with him, he did come over and talk with me, which I
appreciated because I wasn't sure what was happening, and he said that he was cleared a path along our property there on the unimproved part, so he could use that lot for storage. And
so even though it was surprised that he was using that access to do that, as long as he wasn't, you know, there was going to be a whole lot of traffic, a lot of interruption.
We really felt that we were still safe where we were. So since then, since this notice goes up, we're just concerned about the lot becoming a lot that's being built on because
it changes from the expectations and what existed when we moved there. Also, the concern is that the owner of the lots isn't a resident of
the neighborhood. He lives outside the neighborhood. So we were hoping that the board would listen to our concerns and our desires to deny the application as it disrupts the
neighborhood that myself and the other neighbors enjoy. Okay, thank you for being here. Thank you. Is there anyone else? I believe someone over here. Would you come over and state
your name and address for the record?
Okay. My name is Glenn Muccio. I'm also a resident in the neighborhood. Pull the mic up just a little bit so we could hear you. Okay? Yes. So I live in the house right next
door with the pool. I don't know if you can see it near the road. 745 Bayshore. The the house. I don't know if that's
south or north. I don't know that that one right there. That's the house I live in. So, you know, we've seen this lot in progress now the the house next to me being renovated for
the past four years. There's been a trailer in the backyard for the past four years. Okay. And, you know, much like the person who just left the podium,
I feel like I have the right to a certain amount of pleasure of looking at nice things. And I've been looking at a trailer for the past four years. The house is still not completed
next to me, which I figured by now. Four years later, it should have been done. But I don't know how many more years we got. There's an empty pool in the backyard, no fence. So there's a lot of in my opinions.
I don't know if they're violations or whatever you might call them, but now we're talking about this lot behind him, okay? Which I'm trying not
to be selfish because I'm not the kind of person. But if I had to have my bearings, personally, I'd prefer that I'm
asking about the lot behind me. Is that needing a variance to. Behind you. The lot above that one, right? That one right there. If it were to be built
upon, they would have to work with the city that looks smaller to. Right. You know, way smaller than that lot even. Right. So that would probably be a non-conforming where they would have to work with the
city. I mean, by not by doing all these non-conforming things. I think what you're failing to realize is that people being hurt on the other side, I mean, so we're helping these other people. But what about the
people on the other side that this is either hurting their property value or hurting their standard of, you know, peace and quiet? As the previous
resident mentioned? You know, these are the things that I don't see that's really being addressed. I mean, I know we're trying to help everybody out here, but what about the people that are being inconvenienced or their property values going
down? What about them? But we do we do have a set of criteria that we go by, which is ordinance. So there's five criteria that we have to look
at. And it has to be we just can't say, oh, we think we would like to do that. We agree with you and and do it. We have to adhere to the rules that are issued. If you were adhering to
the rules, then the current rules say you can't do that, but you're not adhering to the rules. You're asking for an exception to that rule. I hear I hear what you're saying, but there's also reasonable use. So,
you know, someone owns a property and they want to use it in a reasonable manner. That's why we can make a decision. Yes, this is reasonable or it's not
reasonable. I think in this one you're looking at 250ft■!S, whih is probably three, 3.5ft on the end of the property that it's
missing. So, you know, I understand, you know, having neighbors and, you know, having a view and looking at but that that does not come into our determination as far as if it's
something that's reasonable for the for the property owner. And Mr. Gross were not to really debate with our presenters. So just want to hear what the people that have come to speak
say. So thank you for your comments. That's my feeling. Just one last question. And you know, you guys can do whatever you guys are going to do and there's nothing. You know, I just figured that's why we're here to just know. And we
appreciate you coming. And I think at some point though, when you start building something, there should be a a start and finish point, not, you know, I'm living there. I don't know how many more years I have to live there, but I
mean, I don't want to be looking at construction for the next ten years, right? You know, I mean, start it, finish it. Right. And there are. And you can meet with Miss Keene after any code violations of the property you were referring to.
That's not what we're addressing tonight. But there there is a avenue for reporting code violations. I mean, I'm not interested in hurting anybody. Honestly. I just my
own property. I mean, the house, the lot behind me is that is that buildable? Is it smaller than the other lot? Let me ask you that. They would have to go through a city if I can just
jump in about that particular piece of property. Just for point of clarification, it is I can't I can't see the numbers on the screen unfortunately, but it is likely non-conforming
in probably lot area as well. However, if it's not under common ownership and it never was dating back to 1990 when
our code went into effect, it is likely it could be buildable because it didn't go into common ownership and have the opportunity to become conforming. Okay, so let me just stop you there because
I've only heard rumor, I've only lived there eight years, and I didn't buy it for that lot. From what I hear, rumor has it used to be part of my lot. Not. And that may be the
case. So what happens is, if someone say someone submitted a a a permit for building a house there, or called us about building on there, we in the planning department look at the
history of the property. And we we, we look to see if it checks that box, if it basically was under common ownership, and if it was, then that person has the opportunity to go through a
process before the Board of Adjustment, like we're doing this evening to get approval. If it did not, then they could apply for a building permit if they wanted to. However, they
have to meet all of the required setback requirements. Height requirements of the are 100 district, so even though it's smaller, you still have to comply with what the does it
look like? It's small, I mean according to the right and I'm just going to stop us now since that's really not what we're here for tonight about that property. I understand, but we do. Thank you for coming to
share your concerns. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor or against this proposal from the public? Okay. Hearing
none. Oh, I'm sorry sir. Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Yes. Hello. I'm. I'm Brandon bunning. I live in seven, five, seven
Bayshore, and I'm the owner of the lot. And discussion on the previous conversation. My question not to get into all that other good stuff is if lot
17 gets approved to build a home, how far do they have to take units drive? Do they have to take units drive to Bayshore, or do they have to take units,
drive and do all the sewer and plumbing and etcetera to lot 17? No, I believe that Miss Keane had suggested all the way to Bayshore. Well, the requirement
would be they have to make the improvement the entire width of the property. So option could be just extending from where it stops at the south corner to
the to the end. Or I guess an option could be coming from Bayshore all the way down. Those determinations are made at the permitting stage, but the requirement is the entire frontage of the property. So
you have to get to the property one way or the other. This request, you would approve a permit to the edge of lot 17, or you would only approve it if
it went to the edge all the way to Bayshore Drive. So. So the request that's before the board tonight is strictly whether or not this property meets the criteria as a nonconforming lot
of record. And then once we get to permitting the requirement, what's the requirement? I know the requirement is, is is there
a criteria of the approval is thou shalt make Eunice drive till Bayshore or a requirement of approval is thou shalt make it till the end of lot 17. So
the staff recommended condition of approval would be that at the developer's expense, Eunice Drive is extended to the full width of the property and built a minimum standards at the time
it's developed now, which direction they get to the property would be determined at the time of permitting. So whether they come from the north or from the South would be the determination, usually from our Public Works
department, building department permitting. And hey, since we have this forum, I'm here, I own that lot. So say, hey, I want to build a non-conforming
house on the next lot. Do I need to extend the road to the edge of the next lot, or do I need to extend the road to the edge of Bayshore? That would be
like that, King said. Between you and the city. So we're setting precedents here where we allow, excuse me, the approval to the edge of 17, or
we allow the approval to the edge. So I want that documented. What the requirement is, is a part of the approval that no, each case is handled
independently. We're here to hear comments not not questions. And that is not a legal precedent for purposes of how the city works. So people like
to use that term a lot. It's a legal term. It doesn't meet the it's not in every situation. Okay. What what I'm sorry sir, can you explain what I said or
what you are to make comments to the board? Why you oppose or approve this applicant? Any other questions you have? You can direct the planning and zoning. That's not the way our process works. And I'm just
understanding the requirement of approval. And sir again this is not questions and answers. These are requirements for approval. To build this non-conforming house is to the
edge of the end of the lot. Sir, this is not questions or comments that you make as public comments to the board. Whether you approve or disapprove this application to confirm the requirement. We're
not we're not here to answer questions. That's not how a quasi judicial proceeding works. Otherwise we're violating the due process of the applicant. So how do we understand what
the requirements are that you decide upon? You have heard the presentation. That's what the and that's why I'm asking questions about your presentation. It is not you are
not an applicant. So you do not get to ask questions I think I do. This is a no. That's not the law sir. That's not how it works. So that's not how we do our quasi judicial hearings.
You do not have that right. To clarify when you got. Hey, sir. I'm sorry you have, sir, you have four minutes to come. I have four minutes. I'll be quiet. Will you please listen
to me? No, I am, I will not. This is a quasi judicial hearing. There are due process requirements of this hearing and I do not answer questions from public comment approval. I
am asking to confirm. I don't know why we can't communicate here. You cannot ask questions. This is not to ask questions. Public comment section is related to this. Answers to any
questions any of us may have. Why? Why do you have this forum where we can ask questions? Forum is quasi judicial requirements for due process. That's how we handle the
application. Hey, quit with your lawyer. Speak. We're human beings. We're not lawyers. You can either adjourn the meeting or ask this gentleman to leave. This is not. This is not has
nothing to do with stepping out. Okay, so and any and any public comments are related to the case. We're hearing either pro or favor. And so will if there
are no more people would like to speak for or against, this application will turn now to our board. Comments. So I have
some comments. So this lot, when it was originally platted back in 1953, was a conforming lot. So this this lot was
buildable and had no problems when it was when it was first put in. The only reason that it's not buildable now is because the code changed, not
because the lot changed or correct. So the, the, the lot was originally a conforming lot. No problem. Build it. Due to
the fact that the city changed their codes that made it non-conforming. Okay. Correct? Correct. And we're talking about what we're what we're
voting on is the difference of 250ft■!S. If it was 250ft■!S la, we wouldn't be here. Correct. So if it was, if that lot were
3.5ft longer, we wouldn't even be having a conversation. Correct? Okay. Mr. Would and Ellie, I think we've had situations like this before where we have given permission.
Yes, but just to reiterate that every application is looked at independently against the criteria that are in the code.
Okay. Anybody else? No. I just think if if you could just the one slide next that has the the history that explained that shows overall to get an idea
for everyone's edification of the property that we're looking at and the requirements and that we're talking about something that was platted 72
years ago. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Do I hear someone prepared to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve or second. I'll second. And let me just
clarify, is that with the staff's recommendation added, yes, I, I can clarify my motion to approve this as a
nonconforming lot of record with the requirement to extend Eunice, Eunice Drive or Eunice Lane. Eunice drive. Eunice
drive to the end of the property line of lot 17. That's my motion. Yeah. No, I'm just
waiting for. Okay, roll call. Mr. would approve. Miss Turner. Approve, Mr. Grossman approve. Approve. Thank you. Thank you
so much. And you can work with the city to continue the process for you. The next application we have tonight is
25 Dash 53. The variance to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed the maximum allowable size, location being
at 1601 Richard Irvin Parkway. Miss Keane, if you'd make your presentation okay. Again, the property is outlined in red
here on the screen located off of Richard Irvin Parkway. The zoning in the surrounding area is a mix of our 100 single family residential and then RPG
to the east, which is residential plan development. That's the Savannah Pointe subdivision. The applicants are here requesting to allow an accessory dwelling unit to
exceed the maximum size permitted, based on the size of the proposed primary dwelling. The permitted size based on the code is 1100 square feet, and they are proposing an accessory
dwelling unit of 1900 square feet. The. This is a look at the proposed concept plan provided by the applicant. It's been flipped around. So Richard Irving is here at the top. The
main primary dwelling is located here with the accessory dwelling located towards the back, about 90ft away from the roadway. Both dwellings are proposed to have one shared
access point from Richard Irvin Parkway. The Land Development Code permits an accessory dwelling unit with single family dwellings in all residential districts. It does
limit the maximum size to either 600ft■!S or 20% of the floor area of the primary dwelling, whichever is greater. Again, the proposed home is looking to be 50 500ft■!S in si,
which would permit an Adu of 1100 square feet. That's based off the 20% calculation. And again, the proposing a 1900 square foot unit. The Land
Development Code also has a list of other standards that are applicable to an accessory dwelling unit. Those include that there is only one allowed per parcel. The primary
dwellings. The main house has to be owner occupied. All setbacks and lot coverage provisions of the zoning districts have to be met, and separate utility connections are not permitted. They have to
be shared between both units. And then lastly, a restricted covenant has to be recorded at the time of permitting. So with the exception of the maximum
size, all other standards are met and will be met at the time of permitting. There are a few planning considerations with this application. The first
includes property size. The minimum are 100. Lot size is 10,000ft■!S. The subject propery is just over one acre in size. Due to the larger size of the
property, the applicant could opt to subdivide the lot into two lots and they could build one home on each lot. This would remove the size limitation. It would actually
require them to build a minimum square footage of house. The Are 100 district requires a minimum 1200 square foot home in a property. It would require
them to go through a full subdivision process. To do so, the applicant has indicated that the accessory dwelling unit is intended to provide housing for their aging family
members, which is why keeping the site as one property with shared amenities and services is their preference. Another consideration is the view along
Richard Irvin Parkway. Due to the proposed layout and the lot orientation along the street being curved, with the accessory unit placed here and the main unit over here, it
does have the appearance as two houses on two lots, although it does have one shared driveway accessing those two properties or two dwelling units. The Land
Development Code also has standards with respect to accessory uses and structures, and those include that they need to be clearly incidental to, customarily found in association with and serve the
primary use. They have to be subordinate in purpose, area, and extent. They have to contribute to the comfort, convenience, or necessity of the primary use, and they need to be located on the same lot
tractor property. So although although the proposed Adu exceeds that maximum size permitted, it does still meet some of the intent of the accessory use and structure standards. Because it is
smaller than the primary dwelling, it's located on the same property. It's sharing the utility services. It is intended to contribute to the convenience of the primary use
by having a place for aging family members in a nearby structure. However, the the need or the necessity of the larger accessory dwelling unit
is really consideration of the board. And then lastly, the housing element of our comprehensive plan includes a policy. Specifically policy H 1.1.2, and that supports the
idea of increasing the maximum accessory dwelling unit size to increase housing options and affordability. Revisions to this section of our Land Development Code will likely be reviewed and considered during
our next round of updates. However, what that new size or increase would be, or whether that will occur hasn't been determined at this time. Here
are your variance criteria and I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Miss Keane on
this application? Yes Mr. Grossman, so the the subdivision process is this is
a pretty large lot is it? I know it's a difficult question for you to answer, but the the process of the subdivision, would it be extremely difficult
or would it be pretty apparent that they would get a subdivision if they did this one? I would describe it as extremely difficult. It does require them to go through a planning process. They'd have
to work with a surveyor and engineer to lay out the two lots. They would have to meet all of our stormwater requirements for subdivision. They'd have to meet any other
requirements that come into play. When you split into multiple properties, and then it requires a public hearing process. So there is a process that you go through. And then
they would have to demonstrate compliance with all the requirements in our code for subdivision. With that said, there are still requirements that you have to come into comply, comply with when you're
building on a property. With respect to the Florida Building code, you still have to ensure that you're meeting stormwater requirements and not impacting runoff. With the development of
the lot as a whole. But it's just it's a little bit different. There's a little bit more you have to meet with subdivision just asking for an
opinion. Does anything with this particular property jump out at you that it would not be a property for subject, for
approval on a on a subdivision? I don't know if I can provide that answer at this time. That's fair to ask. It's hard to know without. I'm just trying to lay out. Yeah. Sorry.
Yeah. Without a layout in front of me. More details. That's not before us tonight. So they just. Would they have the land available for that option? Thank you for trying. Thank you.
Anyone else have a question for Miss Keane? Just to double check my math is in looking at the maximum size, you know,
600ft■!S or 20% of the floor ar, the primary dwelling, whichever is greater. So if they did want to stick with a 1900 square
foot Adu, then the primary dwelling would have to be at least 9500ft■!S. I believe you'e correct, because I also did the calculation to get to that. So
a fairly large home. Yeah, yeah, that's the other option too. You could have a larger home to increase the size. But yeah. Thank you. Mr. Wood. I'm good
right now. Thank you, Mr. Grossman. I have something else. Just one follow up. So the the size of the secondary property that they can build right now
without approval is 1100 square feet. Correct? Based off the 5500 square foot home, they could build an 1100 square foot. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Miss Keane, do we have the applicant present tonight? If so, please come forward and state your name and address for the record, and we'll be happy
to hear your presentation. Hello. My name is Yanni. I live at 109 Waterbury Drive. It's on the street, kind of right off
in that same subdivision. What we're asking for is we have aging parents. We'd like to get just an extra. The house from the original plan. The house is
a little bit bigger. It's 5700ft■!S. So we're asking right around, probably right around 700ft■!S more to build. The rean we're asking for it, the
hardship that we have, is we have to make it an A subdivision, which isn't really feasible. But what we're looking for for our parents. We would like the extra space just
because we may have a caretaker in the house. Family may come visit. We plan on meeting every cold. That comes along with it.
I think that's I'm a terrible public speaker. Failed it. No thank you. And I think that's it. Okay. If you'd just remain
at the mic for a minute in case some of the board have some questions for you. Okay. Anyone have any questions for the applicant? No, Miss Turner.
Well, so as was, was brought up of the option of dividing it the, the one parcel into two.
That's off the table for y'all. It because the lot was originally split making into subdivision is will be a heavier cost just because of
the stormwater management and kind of that process. We would like to avoid it if if possible. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else
question for the applicant? If not, thank you so much for being here. You can have a seat. And now we'll take comments from the public either for or
against this proposal okay. Thank thank you sir. Yes. And if you go to the mic and state
your name and address. And just confirm that you've been sworn in as well. Thank you. Good evening. I have been sworn in.
My name is Jeff Larson. I live at 1846 Lexington Place. First, I want to thank the board for volunteering to serve on this committee. I'm here to speak in
opposition to the application. The application has presented is not compatible with the surrounding existing homes. Having an ancillary dwelling of
1900 square feet. That's not particularly different than the square footage of the surrounding homes. So I don't believe that it's a a reasonable use for this
property. So frankly, I don't think that there's any logical reason for approval based on the criteria. I do appreciate that the staff recommendation
that we read ahead of time was for denial. And we we ask that you follow that recommendation. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? Yes, ma'am.
And please just state your name and address, whether you've been sworn in. For the record, was Linda, 1863, Lexington. Can you pull the mic down just a little bit? Thank you so much.
Lexington. I just have one question. What role do they access to get into the house? Is it Richard Irving Parkway?
Yes. Correct. That's it. Thank you. Anyone else speak for or against this proposal? Please state your name and address and
whether you've been sworn in. For the record, I have been sworn in. Howard Pichon, 1658 Lakeside Drive, basically right around the corner from this
property. Thank you. Can you show me the previous slide so I can see the actual picture? So it looks like the main house is
to the right and then the Adu is. Yeah, right on the right. This would be the the main home over here and then the Adu
approximately here. Since that property was owned by the church and then they sold it. I am actually for putting the dwelling on there. My house is
lakeside, which is right where that road is. You take a right and that's where I live, on the north end of the lake. My wife and I would love to see that
property be used for a home. It sounds like the family is nice, family oriented. As far as the size of the Adu. A lot of the houses on Lakeside Drive are
3000ft■!S, 20 800ft■!S, so the e is actually small compared to houses in that neighborhood. So I'm all for it. Thank you, thank you. Anyone else here to
speak either for or against this variance. And again we're looking at the variance not whether this is a buildable lot, but the square footage of the
second dwelling. If you just please state your name and address and whether you've been sworn in. For the record, yes, I was sworn in. It's Megan
Delgado, 1819 Lexington Place. My house is the one right there in the little cut out, right next to the primary lot that we're discussing. So the ancillary lot would be kind of
my backyard. And the main house is what I look at from my kitchen and my daughter's room. I just to reiterate what was said from others in my neighborhood. I just feel like
the proposed dwelling is quite large in comparison to even my home. So just I think those rules were put in place for a
reason, and I would prefer that we stick with the size guidelines that have been present. Thank you so much. Anybody else like to speak in
favor or against this variance application? Good evening. My name is Dori Larson. I live at
1846 Lexington Place in the Savannah Point neighborhood. Kind of catty corner to the property. And I would urge you to deny this application. The
city has adu limits for a reason. We don't even have a primary structure at this point. So to already be coming to the city asking for a variance for something that doesn't exist, I
think is putting the cart before the horse. Typically, I think the city's Adu size is 800 and they're asking for 1900. I understand that you can get
up to 20% of the primary size, but to me this is just going way too far. And I would recommend denial. Thank you, thank you. Anybody else here to speak in favor against this
variance request? Okay. Seeing none board any comments from the board, Mr. Grossman? So we
have some letters also, are we right? Yeah. We did receive three letters against this request and none of those folks are here. So they may be some
of the people that. I'm not. I know that I believe that two of them indicated they could not attend. I'm not sure about the
third. Okay. All right. So we just for your consideration. For consideration. Okay. So
we've got the standards and we've got five standards. And now the five standards. We've got two of them that in the
criteria you're talking. Yeah I'm sorry. The criteria the review standards. So we we. The board is the the are the the
city is saying that two of them have not been met. I, I don't see how any I don't see how
these can be met. On the, on these two special circumstances. Peculiar property, but self-created. I don't see anything that we can discuss
about that. And then the. The denying of reasonable use because they can build a 1100 square foot home without or do
a. So there's some there's some other options as well. So I don't see I don't see any wiggle room in that or any conversation. So I don't I
don't know how we can have a conversation about the two that are not met. Are you wanting to make a motion? Are there any
other comments before I hear a motion, I do so that one of the residents brought up a very
valid point about. We have in front of us a application for a variance based upon square
footage of the primary dwelling, which isn't even built yet. So I feel that even regardless of
the square footage situation, which is a significant concern in and of itself, we're putting the cart before the horse. I feel the order of operation
here is of concern. As we know, our board is here to be the human element to our codes, which we have. You know, the application we had just prior
to this earlier this evening was a prime example. You know, we're talking something that was something that was platted in 1953 and is 250 square foot shy, which is the size of a
small bedroom. When we're talking about the size of a whole lot, we're the human element to it. So human element would be, if we're talking about this, is saying the
permitted Adu size could be about 1100 square feet. If they were asking for 1150 1200. This is a pretty significant jump.
This is, you know, more than 33% the size of the floor area of the proposed home, which isn't even built yet. I'm just not comfortable with that big
of a jump, nor the order of operation. Mr. Would you have any comments? No. I think Jackie summed it up pretty well. Okay. Do I hear someone who's willing to make a motion? I'll
make a motion on application 2553 I make a motion to deny. And based upon the city's recommendation to go with our
denial, I hear a second. I'll second it. Madam Secretary, if you roll call, please, Mr. would deny, Miss Turner. Deny.
Mr. Grossman. Deny, miss rich. Yes. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you all for being here.
We'll move to our next application on file is 25 Dash 58. The variance to reduce the required side street and rear
yard setbacks. For the purpose of constructing a single family home on 100 Shaw Drive. And
Miss Keane, if you'd make your presentation okay. Okay, so the property is located at the corner of Shore Drive in
Tallahassee. Tallahassee Drive. Most of the surrounding properties are again in the R 100 zoning district. There are some land conservation zoning to the west along the shoreline,
and then there's some residential multifamily zoning south along Gulf Road. The applicants are requesting to reduce the required side street
total side yard and rear yard setbacks. And this is for the purpose of constructing a new single family home on the subject property. And here's a look at the proposed site plan
for the new home. Due to the lot shape and orientation, the house is angled and oriented towards shore drive and is what is necessitating the variance
request. In the R 100 zoning district, the required side street setback is 15ft. They're proposing a ten foot setback, and the side street is Tallahassee Drive, so it's ten
feet from the closest point. The minimum side yard setback. And R 100 is a minimum of ten feet with a total of 25ft. With the reduction of the side street, it results in the total
20ft. But it does meet the minimum ten feet. And then the required rear yard setback is 30ft. And the applicant is proposing 15ft. And that is from the east property line
here. As I'm sure you guessed it, this is a nonconforming lot of record. This one dates back even further than the last one, and it was platted back in 1924.
It is non-conforming in both lot area and lot width. The property is just over 8000ft■!Sn size, required to be 10,000ft■!S if it was platted today, and
then the minimum lot width. Due to the triangular shape, it has an average lot width of 54ft, and it only has 24ft of frontage on Shore Drive, and the minimum lot with
requirement is 75ft. It does meet the minimum lot depth requirement though, and as I mentioned previously, really the unique shape of the lot and
the size is what's necessitating the variance request. So the applicant's been before the Board of Adjustment over the past several, several years. For
this project, I have outlined in detail in the staff report that history of the variance process and summarized here on the screen. I'm not going to go through all of that tonight.
I'm just going to highlight the items here in blue. I'm happy to answer questions about that, but the most relevant are the three applications here in blue.
So the first is back in October of 2019. The applicant presented a home layout to the Board of Adjustment, and he requested to variance to reduce
the rear yard setback to 15ft and a side street setback again along Tallahassee Drive to 12ft 11in. The board approved that request, and then in June of
2020, the applicant returned to the board to request a further reduce that side street setback to ten feet, still requesting the 15 foot rear yard setback,
but then reducing the side street to ten feet. The reason for that request is really due to a change in the Florida building code that necessitated thicker walls to meet wind loading requirements. This
slightly increased the overall footprint of the house, which required the setback to be slightly smaller. The board approved that request as well.
Then, in June of 2022, the applicant received the building permit for the home construction and it was compliant with the variances that were approved back in 19
or 2019 and 2020. And that, again, was a ten foot side street and a 15 foot rear yard. The building official has issued some extensions over the past few years, but the building permit has remained
active. Therefore, the variance has also remained active and the permit will remain active. This current building permit will remain active until
October 17th of 2028. So why it's before you tonight is the applicant is requesting to change contractors and a change of contractor by our code
requires you to submit a new building permit application with the middle of a new building permit application. It results in the existing variances expiring. So they go
away. So the proposed application and site plan matches what was previously approved back in 2019 and 2020. But it is a new application
that is to be reviewed as a new application under the criteria in the code tonight. And these are your criteria. And I can
answer any questions. So do thank you Miss Keen. Just for the record, Jackie and I were both a part of the Board of
Adjustments. When this has come before, and I know we take each thing as a new come before us as a new case. I just want to
clarify, when you said that when a new contractor comes, they have to apply again, just like in the 2020 when the new
Florida code came out, which required that thicker walls, which made them adjust. Is there anything in the 2025
building process that is going to cause it to bump back for the adjustment again? Because again, kind of the cart before the horse? I know that they need the variance before the
building permit, but when they get to the building permit, is there any new since they have to do a new one, any new gotcha that's going to cause them? I would not be able to answer
that question. I think that that, unfortunately, is just something that may happen from time to time, because certain code requirements do change every, every year or every so
often. That may affect some past approvals. I think that this potentially was a unique situation. I haven't come across it in the past where it's impacted necessarily a
variance. That's fine. And you did say that what's been put forward now for this is the same design structure that you
saw previously, right? Yes. Okay. Does anyone else have any questions for Miss Keen? That was what I wanted to clarify because I remember this application coming up a few
times. So 1920 we're still talking same footprint, same set, all of that. Okay. Mr. Grossman okay. So we have a a
lot that was plotted early 1900s surrounding area. It looks from what I saw in the material, it looks like the
surrounding area. Everybody's a little tight and they're all trying to get the water view or whatever it may be, but it seems like everybody, all, all the homes are a little tight
there as well. And. So we have a history of the this board, you know, previous board approving this. And the only reason that we're here now
because the change of contractor. That's. Yes. That's what this is the new application. And typically a variance is only valid for two
years from the approval date. After that it's basically void. So if someone wants to move forward with a project after that time frame, they would have to reapply. And because
it's been more than two years since that original approval date, and it's a new application, that's why it has to come before us. Thank you, Mr. She just answered my last
question. So basically it's just because we have new contractors essentially. Yeah. Okay. Do we have the applicant present? You'd like to state your name and address and that
you've been sworn in. For the record, I have been sworn in. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the board. Miss Turner. How are you, Mr. City attorney? Miss keen, miss city
clerk, thank you very much for being here tonight and hearing my application. As Miss Keen pointed out, I would like to respectfully propose to you.
This is not a new application. It is a request, a respectful request for reaffirmation of the variances that I currently have, variances that I
currently have, as the city attorney pointed out, satisfy all five of the requirements. Nothing has changed. I am certainly no attorney, but as
far as I can tell under Florida law, if there is no material change in the code, which there hasn't been, if there is no material change in the project, which there hasn't been no
material change in the physical property, which there hasn't been by law, these should be vested, constitutionally vested property rights. I would like
to make one small comment for context on. So the only variances that are applicable to this application are the last two, both of which were approved. I respect the rules
and regulations of the city of Tarpon Springs. So the first variance that I asked for for this particular design, the other projects, the other variances were for different designs that, you know,
actually for a while I just looked for a generic setback reduction because it was trying to sell the property. I just got disillusioned with it. It's a very, very difficult project to pull off, but that's neither
here nor there. For purposes of this discussion. In the staff comments, it says I got a building permit in June 2022
and I have received numerous extensions on that permit because I wanted to keep the permit alive. I've made a substantial six figure investment in both the permit,
the impact fees that I've paid, and the marketing campaign to finally start the project. So after four years of chasing this money, I finally raised
the money to do it. My contractor has gone bankrupt. Plus, there's other problems that this person has, not someone I can expose investors
to under any circumstances. That's basically the situation. Tarpon Springs is one of only three jurisdictions out of 478
cities, towns, counties in the state of Florida that requires a brand new permit when substituting a primary contractor. Most jurisdictions,
certainly the jurisdictions I've worked in, it's a one page form that says, this guy's out, this guy's in. That's it. In this case, all of the time that I've invested in getting the
building permit, getting it approved, going to these hearings, paying the impact fees, spending money on a marketing campaign to raise the capital. I was supposed to break ground at the end of May.
This building would have been under construction. So I would respectfully propose to you that I satisfy all five of the requirements. We can talk about the physical characteristics of
the property real quick. It is an extremely difficult lot to build upon. We are in a zoning district with a standard lot with minimum requirement is
75ft. I'm less than one third of that. My lot frontage is 22ft. It's almost a triangle. My square footage area is almost 20% less than the 10,000
square foot minimums, 8088ft■!S. Also, the variance request. Specifically, I want to point this out because this is important is not for the
livable building space, occupied living space of the property. These are merely for privacy features in the rear, which is really the side yard
setback setback of the property next to me on Tallahassee. So these are merely privacy features that make this design, in the words of the
recommendation for approval on a variance request from city staff, the property has two front yards. So we obviously we orient the property towards
Shore Drive. That's our front yard. But all the other properties on Tallahassee front on Tallahassee. So given the shape of the property and given
the square footage of the property while on a heavy foot traffic corner lot, we have to have some privacy features. So the only setback requirements that I'm asking for, barring a
few feet of the living space in the rear that is set back like almost 24ft from the property line, is for privacy feature, we have a bathroom sticking out
at the bottom of there. It's got if you see the site plan, it's got an open square. If I filled in that open square with a floor and put a railing around it as a balcony, it
would be allowed, you know. So what I would argue is an open square is a less intensive use, but it's not a balcony. So I have to ask for a setback variance on the side street.
The only encroachment within the 15 foot required setback are privacy walls. Again, if those walls were balconies, if they didn't go all the way down to the ground and anchor into
the foundation, if they were off the ground sticking out as a balcony, the exact same setbacks would be allowed under the current code, but not as a privacy wall, which is, I would
argue, in in order to enjoy reasonable use of the property on a corner lot that has a lot of foot traffic, that this is really the absolute minimum
that I can ask for to construct a reasonably sized residence within the compatible nature of of the neighborhood. Thank you
so much. Before you sit down, does anyone have any questions for the applicant tonight? Hearing none. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Let me say one more thing. The
first time that I went up for a variance and we had like 15 people from the neighborhood coming out in opposition. You may not know this. You don't need to. Okay. Okay. Thanks. All right. Well, I mean,
there's not a single neighborhood in the United States that a neighbor is going to come to a board like this and say, you know what? I, I would like to live next to a construction zone, but, you
know, we have constitutionally protected property rights to develop. That's all I would like to say in closing. Thank you. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay,
sir. I'm sorry. Behind you. If you'd like to come forward, state your name and address and whether you've been sworn in. Okay. I've been sworn in. And
Robert Huffman, I live directly next door to the property. 1716 Tallahassee. And some of the things he's pointing out don't
work. The ten foot setback for privacy on a garage. And the distance because of the code, the wind walls move them inside,
don't extend the zoning out and take up more. We all had to hold 24ft from the street to the front of our houses. He's on the corner. It's going to
stick out like a sore thumb. None of the neighborhood likes it. If you look at the proposed pictures, he doesn't show the neighborhood. It looks like
he's on a wooded big acreage, so nothing he shows there like you see on the picture. None of the houses are there and we
just don't want it, you know, build something that fits. They tore house down there before that didn't fit. And, you know, the board had it or the the
city condemned it and tore it down. Now it's the same nonconforming lot. Nothing has changed. So I don't see a reason to approve anything.
He's he's asking as far as a living. Next door to a construction zone, they're building a house directly across from me, and it's fine. They fell within the zoning, so
there's nothing to complain about. It fits the neighborhood. His house. If you put it down on South Beach, it'd be beautiful in our area. It just
doesn't fit. All right. That's all I have to say. Okay. Thank you so much for coming. Okay. Does any staff have any? Not
staff. Board of adjustment board, fellow board members have any comments? Discussion? Yes, I have some discussion. So we have a we have a a lot
that's been plotted a long, long time ago. And it has a history of. This board given
approval. For the for the building. It seems like the setbacks are similar to a lot of other other properties in the area. And the only reason
that we're really here is because of a contractor. So just wanted to put that on the
record. And I do have, you know, memory of the various, you know, variance applications and the details provided to this very
unique property. And feel it still meets, as we said, in 19 and 20, Mr. wood, do you have
anything? No. Okay. Well, no. You know, it's been a long, long, long time in process. And, you know, I hope however it
gets moved forward, you know, will be good. So. Yeah. No it's okay. Thank you. Do I hear a
motion? I'll make a motion. Second on application 2558, I make a motion to approve as
applied for. And I'll second. Madam Secretary, Mr. wood approved. Miss Turner. Approved. Mr. Grossman approved. Miss
Rich approved. Thank you. And if you'll work with the city to further your plans. No more variances. Hopefully. Well. And
unless this contractor doesn't work, and then you'll be back. Okay. That's all right. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you
all for being here. It's been a long night. We have before us one set of minutes from August 27th that were prepared. Have
you all been able to review those? I'll make a motion to approve hearing a motion. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Mr.
Grossman. Seconds. Roll call. Mr. Wood. Approve, miss Turner. Approve. Mr. Grossman approved, miss Rich. Yes, approve. I do
want to give a point of privilege to our Madam Secretary Kim. Is. This is going to be her last meeting with us. And she's moving on to
bigger and brighter things down the road. And she has worked tirelessly with this board of adjustments and probably a lot of other things we don't know about, but this is what we know
about. And so I can tell you, she's done a great job working with us, and we're going to miss you very much. So if there's anything you'd like to share. Well, I've enjoyed working with all of you for the
last ten years, so I'm turning off. I've been here with the city. My ten year anniversary will be on October 12th, and my
last day is October 15th. I'm just for family reasons. My husband and I are moving to Sarasota. Well, Sarasota will be lucky to welcome you, but we
hope you guys will take a road trip occasionally to come back to Tarpon to visit us. Yeah we will. Thank you. You'll be missed, Miss Kim. Thank you,
thank you. Any other. Thank you. Any other board or staff comments? I was gonna say you just took the words out of my mouth, so we'll miss Kim. Yeah.
Chair, I just want to bring up a point that we had in the first, first presentation. This is a this, by the way, is a great board. You all look at
all the issues. You do a great job with it. We tend to normally when somebody asks a question from the audience, we tend to answer it because that's normally what we do. The
problem is, is when we have something like tonight where we have to weigh our due process requirements. As you all understand, an applicant comes in, they have due process. We
have our criteria. So it's really supposed to be comments like this last one in the middle one, that was great. People came up, they made their comments and and it wasn't a
problem. When we start doing the back and forth, we run into a problem. If you have a situation where, say you were to deny that one, let's assume that you deny one like that,
well, then we somebody can make an allegation. Well, you violated my due process rights because you the competent, substantial evidence that you base your determination on has
to be exactly that. And someone's opinion is not. So I, I hate to, you know, I hate to ever interrupt your meetings.
And I hated to do that, but I think we got to a point where it was going to asking questions that were not relevant to what you were discussing. It wasn't going to help you get competent,
substantial evidence. And the individual, whether liking my legal terminology or not, you're a quasi judicial board. It's different. You're a final board. So we have to be very
careful, because the only appeal from you is to the circuit court. And so I have to be able to defend those actions. And you all do a great job with it. And Ali does a phenomenal
job with the presentation. So we always have that competent, substantial evidence. But when we start going a little far afield, you know I normally don't like to interrupt, but that particular person was
going. That's why issues that were not relevant try to redirect a little bit to make sure, because the way I view it, the only person that we should
be going back and forth with is the applicant or staff. And so we hear the presentation for or against, but not, you know, the back and forth for more
information. And you know, when people start like the code violation type of thing. That's why I try to say, take that up with the staff later or do something later. And it's it's
kind of hard to be to explain your criteria. It's presented up there, you know it because you do it and you're making your determination. It's not your job to explain this to
people if they have questions. We have people. The city always answers any questions we have. I'm wondering if I know during the commissioners meetings they
have a stack of the city manager's cards, but I'm wondering if that may not be a good idea to have, because then when things start going a
different direction, it's more appropriate for them to talk to the city manager or raise a concern or do. And then they would give them something. But because all of us are
volunteers, it's it's more like they feel like they can go at us. And frankly, that's the other part of it. You all volunteer your time and you should not be subject to anything other than people
being civil when these actions come on. If you don't, if you're in the audience and you don't agree with how we're doing something, I got that. And you're I'm happy to talk to anybody about that. But we
can't have somebody that's really violating someone's due process rights. When you have an application. I mean, you know that a person has the right to present their case. They have the right to hear
what people in opposition have to say. There's nothing wrong with that. But we're not here to debate it. Right. So so I have a comment. Question. So comment. Thank you for for what
you did appreciate it very much. And so the question I have as a, you know, non tenured tenure, you know, person on the board
is we interact with the applicant. So the applicant can can comes up says what they say. We can ask open ended questions to the to the applicant.
Absolutely. And then the other folks that come up to state their opinion, we don't interact with them. We just hear their opinion. And then that's the end of it. Exactly. The people you should be conversing with are the city
staff and the applicant. They're the ones who answer the questions. That's your competent, substantial evidence, right? The fact that I come up from the audience and say, this is a great project, or this is
a horrible project, is something that you're hearing me, and it could trigger a question that you go back to Ali and say, well, Ali, but not to them. Right? Okay. Or to the
applicant. You know, you've heard that they don't like how you're handling this. What is your response to that? But by, you know, when somebody comes
up and they're and they're asking questions on our criteria to try to say that you all don't know what you're doing or you're not following the criteria so far afield,
especially from this board. Who knows the criteria, who looks at it? You all ask really good questions. It's not like you don't know what you're doing.
And so, you know, it just muddies the the presentation on both sides. And then it comes up. If you were to deny that one, then I have to deal with
the fact that, okay, now what was your basis for denial when we had these comments and were going back and forth with someone on the one that you denied, it was very again, you
made the right comments that staff has recommended denial. You brought up the fact that it only met two of the criteria, couldn't even meet the other. I mean, that was perfect, right?
So that, you know, but when people start interfering with how you're doing your business, then we run into a problem. But I don't I just want you to know I don't like to do that. But I
felt in this time we had no choice. Because you're earning your keep. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I appreciate you jumping in. I just wanted to add to one thing that I'm doing
when the public is up there, because I understand, like when they're asking questions, they sometimes they just want clarification or they are confused and they're right. And one thing that I'm doing is
I'll make note of things, things that I can I can answer very easily, or I can provide clarification. Or if they're stating something that's very incorrect, that needs to be clarified. And when it comes
back to a time that staff can address some things, I can I can take care of it at that point, or I can answer or bring it up at that point so I can help, maybe address some of the
maybe the uncomfortable silence at that point. Well, and going back to the first one, I thought it was very important that you all address the issue that really you're talking
about 250ft, right? This is not I mean that that's like an example of a variance. You have a lot size that's, you know, slightly smaller and all those
other aspects of it. So I think you concentrated on the issues even though all this other stuff was being thrown at you, which I thought was, you know, really good. It wasn't easy, but but I think you guys did a
great job with it. I got a quick question. When they're on the hallway discussing things and it's a little louder, can you just stop everything and address them? Yes, we can. In fact, the other thing I was doing, honestly, I didn't want
to go there. But if he continued on, I was going to ask the chair to adjourn the meeting until I was when they were done. All right. Yeah. I mean, it's hard when when
they've exited to the room and they're in the lobby, I wasn't sure what to do either. I was kind of I was I was like, I didn't know if they would even hear me if I'm out there, but I
figured I would. I'm not the right person, you know, I just want I would have spoken up because I'm probably the closest. I just want to go. Can we pause for a second, folks? Can you take it outside? I just
want to make sure that that's okay with everybody. Meetings too. Yeah, that's like the other where I brought up before, since we don't have a security person here. Like if we had a security person, that could be kind of. Well, right. And and
it's interesting that you mentioned that we could ask and we could talk to the city manager about having a police officer here. The only other option is, honestly, is to
adjourn your meeting. And then until we get people to adhere to what we do, I mean, the police, it's not far, but I don't want to have to call them.
We could have somebody here. Normally we know if it's going to be something that we need somebody here. And I think you all have done that in previous meetings when there was an
application that the city staff was aware could was going to be quite popular. Right. And you would have appropriate support
for everyone. And if we had to look at this agenda, I would have thought it would have been the second. Yeah, yeah, if anything, not the first one. And I was expecting, I was expecting more on the last one,
given the history, because we have had a lot of interest in that property, and I wouldn't have guessed the first one at all. I was thrown off. I yeah,
I didn't think it was going to be contentious. I know we had people that are interested in each of them, but not everybody was here for that middle one. Yeah, right. That's what I thought. Everyone's here for the middle one. We had three,
you know, emails sent to us. So I figured that's the one. And the first one I was like, I don't you know, that was surprising. Do any of you all
know? I know I think the staff know, but I'm not going to be here in October. So Mr. Grossman will be chairing. Are there any of Mr. We're planning on bringing some really tough
ones would and I just want to make sure do you miss turner and Mr. wood I don't mind speaking up. I just want to I just want to speak up at the right time and do the right thing. No, I mean, you all
asked the right. You ask good questions. So that's never been a problem. But it's it's your purview. This is your meeting for them to present to you to make the decision. Comments are
just we take public comments because we're required to take public comments. But it's really and that's why when you use the word forum, that really wasn't right. This is this isn't this is quasi judicial.
You're acting as a judge and or jury. So there are certain requirements. And we have to give the city and the applicant the most credence of what we're
doing. And then everybody else is just it's additional information. But just for example, if we had I don't know, let's just say hypothetically, we had 50 people here to speak
against the second one, but we didn't have the proper information from either the applicant or the city. You can't base your determination on what they have to say. So
and you all are great about that. But there comes a point where, you know, it's it, it's it only hurts the scenario versus, you know, trying to get
your job done. And you are volunteers and you shouldn't be subject to things like that. Okay. Well, all of our volunteers at 758, and I'm going to adjourn this meeting.
We've earned our keep. This one was not videoed. It was, I
think.