[00:00:01] >> I'M ANDREW GALLETTI HERE WHERE ZONING BOARD MEETING, COLLEGE ORDER. [Zoning Board of Adjustments on March 9, 2022.] IT IS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9TH, IT'S 3:39 PM. AT THIS TIME, I'D JUST LIKE TO GET A MOMENT OF SILENCE IN HONOR OF COUNCILMAN THAT JUST PASSED, MR. ORTEGA. I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MR. ORTEGA THAT KNEW HIM? >> QUIROGA? >> QUIROGA. >> I HONESTLY DIDN'T KNOW HIM. I KNEW THAT HE WAS A RECENTLY ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBER, AND HIS BROTHER BOTH HAVE BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN THE COMMUNITY. I'M SURE HE WILL BE MISSED BY MANY. >> I'M SURE HE WILL. THANK YOU. CAN WE GO AND CALL THE ATTENDANCE, PLEASE? >> BOARD MEMBER BIKOVA? >> HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER CLEMENT? >> HERE. >> CHAIRPERSON GALLETTI? >> HERE. >> VICE CHAIRPERSON GIRNDT? >> HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER HOLLAWAY IS ABSENT. BOARD MEMBER RAILEY? >> HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER SYLER? >> HERE. >> THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TODAY? SEEING NONE, I LIKE TO GET APPROVAL OR CORRECTION OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 9TH. >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> YES, SIR. >> I'M NOT QUITE SURE TO HANDLE IT, BUT MEMBERS RAILEY AND SYLER WERE BOTH HERE, BUT DUE TO THE MISPRINT ON THE AGENDA, ARRIVED AS THE MEETING WAS ENDING, AND I'M NOT SURE THEY SHOULD BE COUNTED AS AN OFFICIAL ABSENCE. IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF ABSENCES ALLOWED A BOARD MEMBER, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE SHOW THAT ON THE MINUTES OR WHETHER WE JUST CORRECT IT IN THE RECORDS, BUT IT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED AS ABSENCES AGAINST THEIR FORM. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> THANK YOU. >> IF NOBODY'S OPPOSED TO THAT, I AGREE WITH THAT. >> I'M PERFECTLY HAPPY FOR STAFF TO HANDLE IT HOWEVER THEY WANT. IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE MINUTES, WE CAN DO THAT. IF THEY WANTED TO JUST CORRECT THE RECORD, THAT'S OKAY, TOO. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> ALL RIGHT. DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT? >> YES. >> WOULD DO YOU LIKE TO HANDBOOK THEN WE CORRECT THE MINUTES? >> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> EXCUSE ME. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? IT PASSES. THANK YOU. WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTS HERE. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT HERE [NOISE] TODAY? SEEING NONE, MEETING FORMAT, PLEASE. >> WE'RE BACK IN PERSON. NO ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS AT THIS TIME. JUST A REMINDER THAT ALL THE CITIZENS SPEAKING DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR THEM TO SPEAK. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU. >> HOW MANY VOTE? >> FIVE REGULAR MEMBERS. >> MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS, 22Z-002. >> THERE WE GO. TO MANY CONTROLS. [00:05:02] ALL RIGHT, 22Z-002 IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARDS IN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT. THERE WERE 19 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, THREE OF THOSE RETURN, AND ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE 3 ADDENDUM TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK FACING ISLA DEL SOL DRIVE FROM 20 FEET TO 17 AND ONE HALF FEET IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE AN AC PLATFORM AND DECK. AN ERROR IN STAKING THE HOUSE RESULTED IN A 2.5 FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, WHICH WAS NOT DISCOVERED UNTIL THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROCESS. AT THIS POINT, THE APPLICANT APPROACHED CITY STAFF FOR GUIDANCE. THE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY A 100 FOOT LONG, 40 FOOT WIDE AT STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, WITH AN AREA OF 5,358 SQUARE FEET. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARD THIS REQUEST ON THE FEBRUARY 9TH, 2022 REGULAR MEETING AS WELL BECAUSE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FAILED DUE TO LACK OF AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, THE APPLICANT IS PRESENTING THE REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION. PLEASE NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE AND JUSTIFICATION. WE DO HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE APPROXIMATE AREA OF ENCROACHMENT ON THE AS-BUILT SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED AND AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE HOUSE LOOKING FROM THE, I THINK THAT'D BE THE APPROXIMATE LOOKING FROM THE NORTHEAST. HERE WE HAVE SOME OTHER PHOTOS AT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED, POINTING OUT THE SAME DECK AND WALKWAY ENCROACHMENT FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES. HERE WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS FROM THE GROUND, THAT'S THE SUBJECT SITE IN THE UPPER-LEFT. THEN LOOKING ALONG THE STREET TOWARD THE NORTH AND THEN LOOKING BACK ALONG THE STREET TO THE SOUTH, AND EACH TIME SHOWING THE HOUSE AND DECK IN QUESTION. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. IS THE OWNER HERE ON? [INAUDIBLE] YES, SIR. WOULD YOU PLEASE COME OUT AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME. YES SIR. >> [INAUDIBLE] THERE WE GO, NOT ONLY MINE. THE COMMUNITY IS VERY MUCH A NEIGHBORHOOD, AND AS SUCH, I WANTED TO PRESENT A GOOD NEIGHBOR FRONT-FACING STREET VIEW OF THE HOME. YOU CAN SEE THE HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY DO HAVE THAT DECK LOOKING AREA. THE WETLAND BEHIND THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY WHERE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS FACING. WE REALLY TRIED TO MAINTAIN THE AESTHETIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THIS FRONT-FACING STREET VIEW. THE HOUSE GOT BUILT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE PROCESS. IT GOT BUILT, AND NOW THIS DECK IS ENCROACHING ON AN AERIAL EASEMENT. NONE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOME IS CROSSING THE SETBACK LINE. IT'S NOT ENCROACHING ON ANY NEIGHBOR PROPERTY. IT'S NOT INFRINGING ON THE CITY'S ABILITY TO GET TO ANY OF THE UTILITIES. THE WATER AREA, AND THE SEWER AREA, AND THE FRONT, AND THEN THE UTILITY POLE IS ACTUALLY BEHIND THE HOME ON THE WETLAND AREA. SO NONE OF THOSE UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE BEING INFRINGED UPON. THE NEIGHBORHOOD APPRECIATES THAT STREET FACING VIEW, THE GOOD NEIGHBOR VIEW, AS I'M CALLING IT, THEY PROVIDED A PETITION AND SIGN THEIR NAMES. I SUBMITTED THAT AS WELL. THERE'S A PETITION OF NAMES. THESE ARE ALL OWNERS, NOT JUST TRANSIENT PEOPLE AT AIRBNB. THEY'RE ACTUALLY OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, AND THEY ALL AGREE THAT IT MAINTAINS THE AESTHETIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEIR FEELING ALONG WITH MINE, IS THAT A DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WILL MAKE THEM UNJUSTLY SHARE THE BURDEN OF THIS STRICT ENFORCEMENT. THAT REALLY THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOOKING AT THE BACKSIDE OF MY HOUSE AS THEY COME UP AND DOWN THEIR STREET ALL DAY LONG. I WOULD PREFER NOT TO UPSET MY NEIGHBORS. THEY'VE ALREADY GOTTEN TO KNOW MY NAME, [00:10:02] AND I'VE PROMISED THAT I'M REALLY NOT THIS MUCH TROUBLE. I THINK THERE'S REALLY NO ILL-GOTTEN GAIN FROM THIS VARIANCE. IT'S NOT LIKE WE INTENTIONALLY TRIED TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE REAL ESTATE ON THIS HOUSE BY DOING THAT. IT'S NOT LIKE I SOLD OFF A PIECE OF THE LAND AND NOW I'M TRYING TO ENCROACH ON THAT SETBACK. IT'S THE SAME HOUSE WITH THE SAME FEATURES. THERE REALLY IS NO ILL-GOTTEN GAIN FINANCIALLY HERE. I'M NOT WINNING ANYTHING THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE NORMALLY HAD. I FEEL LIKE WE'VE REALLY TRIED TO BUILD IT IN GOOD FAITH AND MAINTAIN THE SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCES. WE'RE NOT REALLY BEING A NUISANCE. WE'RE NOT INTERFERING WITH ANYBODY ELSE'S LAND RIGHTS. IT'S JUST THESE HOMES ARE HANDMADE AND HERE WE ARE TODAY. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE OWNER? I THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU FOR COMING. >> THANK YOU. >> I LIKE TO RETURN THE MEETING TO THE BOARD NOW. YES, SIR. >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TWO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. THE FIRST SPECIAL CONDITION BEING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITH A 2.5 FOOT ENCROACHMENT DUE TO A SURVEY ERROR. SECOND BEING THAT THERE IS NO FEASIBLE WAY TO MOVE THE STRUCTURE SINCE IT'S COMPLETED AND THE MODIFICATIONS, AND EVERYTHING, WOULD REQUIRE CHANGES TO ALL THE PLANS AND THE PROVE, DESIGN AND EVERYTHING. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS CAN BE ENFORCED, BUT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON THE OWNER FOR AN ERROR THAT WAS NOT CAUSED BY HIM, BUT BY THE CONSTRUCTION. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ALL INDICATED THAT THEY APPROVE OF IT. SECOND, AND LOOKING AT THE AERIAL VIEW SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, IT APPEARS THAT THE DECK IS SIMILAR TO ALL OTHER CONSTRUCTION IN THAT LOCAL AREA. IT'S ALSO NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THEN MANY NEIGHBORS HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE. THE VARIANCE IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED AS IT WAS A CONSTRUCTION AND SURVEY ERROR NOT DONE BY THE OWNER. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT, AND IN FACT, ENFORCEMENT OF IT WOULD HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY AND ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE DEGREE OF THE VARIANCE IS THE LEAST ALLOWABLE WE'RE GRANTING, WE'RE REQUESTED TO GRANT A VARIANCE THAT IS IN THE MINIMAL THAT CAN BE GRANTED. THEREFORE, THIS WILL AVOID AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE VARIANCE WAS NOT USED TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES BECAUSE THE VARIANCE WAS AN ERROR BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER, AND BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THE SPIRIT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND JUSTICE IS BEING DONE TO ALL CONCERNED BY PREVENTING ANY HARDSHIP ON THE OWNER. >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> IT'S OPEN NOW FOR DISCUSSION. >> LOBBY C I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT AS I WAS LAST TIME WHEN WE REVIEWED IT. I THINK IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE OWNER DID NOT INTEND FOR THIS TO HAPPEN, NOR DID HE PARTICIPATE IN THE ERROR ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN A PERIPHERAL BASIS SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL OF US TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE. >> ANYBODY ELSE? THEN I'D LIKE TO CALL IT FOR A VOTE. WE'RE GOING TO DO A ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU SIR FOR COMING IN. >> THANK YOU. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. >> LOOKS LIKE THAT'S THE ONLY THING ON OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY. I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AND CLOSE IT. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.