ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. [Zoning Board of Adjustments on April 3, 2024.] [00:00:04] BEFORE I CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER, I BELIEVE. BECCA, IT'S YOUR TURN. AND IT LOOKS AS IF WE HAVE A VACANT POSITION UP HERE FOR YOU TO MOVE TO. COME ON DOWN. ALL RIGHT, COME ON. ALL RIGHT, HERE WE GO. WELL, AGAIN, GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. IT IS 331 ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL THE 3RD. I NOW CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER. ATTENDANCE, PLEASE. CALL]. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NUMBER THREE, ITEM THREE. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ANY OF TODAY'S CASES? HEARING NONE. I'LL MOVE TO ITEM FOUR. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE APPROVAL. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? THEN ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIED. BEFORE WE GET TO PUBLIC COMMENT, A QUESTION WAS RAISED TO ME. CATHERINE. THAT. WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK, WHAT IS OUR CHARGE HERE IN THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? THE BOARD HAS SEVERAL CHARGES. ONE IS THE GRANTING OF VARIANCES FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT HAS A SET OF CRITERIA, WHICH IS PROVIDED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. ANOTHER ONE IS THE GRANTING OF SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. AND THAT'S ALSO HAS A DIFFERENT SET OF CRITERIA. AND THAT'S ALSO PROVIDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. THOSE ARE SPECIFIC TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. YOU ALSO HAVE THE POWER TO PROVIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR NON-CONFORMING PROPERTIES, TO TURN THEM FROM NON-CONFORMING TO CONFORMING. THOSE ARE YOUR CORE DUTIES. IS THERE ANY OTHER CORE DUTY THAT I'M FORGETTING? OKAY, IT MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT. I GUESS THE ONLY MAJOR COMMENT THAT I'LL MAKE IS THAT THIS IS A VERY SPECIAL BOARD IN THAT IT'S A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD. AND SO YOUR DECISIONS ARE REVIEWED BY A DISTRICT COURT LEVEL. IT'S NOT REVIEWED BY ANY OTHER CITY BOARD, NOT BY CITY COUNCIL. THE BUCK KIND OF STOPS HERE AT THE CITY LEVEL. AND ANY OTHER REVIEW IS ABOVE THE CITY LEVEL. SO, IT'S A VERY SERIOUS BOARD. AND I'VE BEEN REMINDED THAT YOU'RE ALSO THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE ZONING BOARD. I'M SORRY, THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IN THEIR DECISIONS. THAT'S RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND OF STAFF DECISIONS, STAFF DETERMINATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CATHERINE OR FOR MISS [INAUDIBLE]? ALL RIGHT. OKAY, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON. PUBLIC COMMENT. NO. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. IF THERE'S ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, THEY CAN COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. LET'S MOVE TO OLD BUSINESS. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE CASE. THAT'S CORRECT. 24Z-002. THIS IS AT 17427 BRISTOW. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. ARTICLE THREE DISTRICT YARD, LOT, LOT AND SETBACK ADDENDUM FOR THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK. THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE ZBA LAST MONTH, AND A DEFERRAL WAS REQUESTED FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS AND SHOULD BE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT FOR [00:05:10] REVIEW. SO, THERE WERE FOUR PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ONE FOR, OH, SORRY, 40 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, FOUR RETURNED, ONE IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM ARTICLE THREE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ADDENDUM. AS NOTED, IN ORDER TO REDUCE REQUIRED YARD SETBACK FROM 10FT TO 6FT. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED BUILDING PERMITS TO SHOW PART OF THE REAR DECK AND STAIRS ENCROACHING APPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET INTO THE MINIMUM TEN-FOOT REAR SETBACK. THIS IS A NEW BUILD. THE LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT. LET'S SEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 12.40, ONE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, OR YOUR EXCEPTION MAY BE REQUESTED WHERE THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF ANY TWO OR MORE LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AND YOU CAN ONCE AGAIN REFERENCE EXHIBIT A FOR THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL TO YOU KNOW SHOW THIS. SO NORMALLY IN R-1, YOU HAVE A 20-FOOT FRONT SETBACK, THREE-FOOT SIDE SETBACK, TEN-FOOT REAR SETBACK. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS SIMPLY REQUESTING TO REDUCE THAT REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FOOT TO 6 FOOT. PLEASE NOTE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AND PLEASE NOTE THE APPROVAL STANDARDS. ALSO FINALLY, NOTE THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND THE STAFF REPORT AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. SO HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING TOWARD THE TOWARD THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOOKING GENERALLY SOUTH. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE INITIAL ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL THAT THE APPLICANT HAD SENT FOR THE PREVIOUS MEETING. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST, TO THE WEST. AND ONCE AGAIN, THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN YOUR STAFF REPORT FOR REVIEW. BUT THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I HAVE ONE GENERAL QUESTION. ON THAT PARTICULAR IMAGE. DANIEL. THE ADDRESS AT 17431. IT LOOKS AS THOUGH THAT HOUSE. IT COVERS LIKE TWO PARCELS. TWO LOTS. IT'S THE ONE RIGHT NEXT TO THE. IT'S EAST OF THE PARCEL IN QUESTION. THE SETBACK WOULDN'T NECESSARILY APPLY TO THAT HOUSE, WOULD IT? IT'S ON TWO LOTS. IS THAT THE PRESUMING THAT THE PARCEL MAP IS CORRECT AND THOSE LOTS WERE RE-PLATTED TOGETHER AT SOME POINT, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING HERE. I'M NOT SEEING A SEPARATE PARCEL, AND I'M SEEING THAT THE ADDRESS IS STAMPED, YOU KNOW, ACROSS TWO PARCELS. AND THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A, AN IMAGE OF A FENCE THAT EXTENDS INTO THAT SOUTHERNMOST AREA OF THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL. RIGHT. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS. THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. AND YOU KNOW ONCE AGAIN THE REAR YARD EXCEPTION IS PERMISSIBLE IF TWO OR MORE LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK SHOW AN EXISTING PATTERN OF, OF SOME ENCROACHMENT. BUT THIS PARTICULAR. THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL IS NOT IN CONSIDERATION, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. THEIR REAR YARD SETBACK WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER SOUTH. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE. OH, SORRY. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. SUSAN. WE ALSO WERE GIVEN, AS PART OF OUR PACKET, AN AERIAL VIEW THAT WAS BETTER DONE THAN THIS ONE THAT WE WERE GIVEN LAST TIME. AND I DON'T THINK I SAW THAT. WHEN DID I MISS IT? WHEN YOU WERE PUTTING PICTURES UP. I DID WE DID NOT INCLUDE ALL THE PHOTOS THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED IN THIS PRESENTATION, BUT WHAT THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED LAST MONTH AND THE ADDITIONAL STUFF THAT WAS SUBMITTED SHOULD BE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. RIGHT. WE I MEAN, WE'VE GOT IT. OKAY. BUT THIS ONE THAT YOU PUT UP IS THE ONE THAT THAT PEOPLE SEEM TO HAVE AN OBJECTION TO LAST TIME. CORRECT. THIS IS THE OLD ONE WE INCLUDED, JUST FOR COMPLETENESS'S SAKE. OKAY. OKAY. DAVID. DANIEL IN THE PACKET. THIS PARTICULARLY THIS MAP THERE ARE HANDWRITTEN COMMENTS STATING THAT I SEE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR PROPERTIES ARE NOTED, OR FIVE PROPERTIES ARE NOTED THAT CLAIM TO HAVE A DECK EXTENDING INTO THE TEN-FOOT SETBACK. MY QUESTION IS THAT WERE THOSE ALSO GRANTED SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS THROUGH THE ZBA PROCESS OR ARE THESE JUST NON-CONFORMING USES [00:10:05] OR HAVE THEY. THREE QUESTIONS. ONE, THEY BEEN THROUGH THE ZBA PROCESS TO HAVE TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT BEING CONSTRUCTED? TWO, IF THEY HAVEN'T, IS IT SIMPLY A NON-CONFORMING USE THAT THAT IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THIS GROUP. AND THEN DO AND THREE ARE, ARE THESE ACTUALLY I MEAN THEY'RE HANDWRITTEN NOTES. SO, THEY'RE NOT SURVEYED. AND SO, THERE'S WE DON'T HAVE ANY TRUE PROFESSIONAL OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE IN THE SETBACK. WE GET ALL THAT I THINK SO. ALL RIGHT. SO YEAH, LET ME GO IN ORDER WHILE MY SHORT-TERM MEMORY IS STILL FUNCTIONAL. SO, FIRST OF ALL I'M NOT SURE SOME OF THESE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE AGE, THIS IS GOING TO QUESTION NUMBER TWO, BASED ON THE AGE OF THE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THESE WERE ESTABLISHED BEFORE OUR CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. SO, THEY MAY BE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING. AS FAR AS QUESTION NUMBER THREE GOES I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHERE THEY ATTEMPTED TO KIND OF DRILL DOWN AND CLARIFY YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF THEIR ARGUMENTS. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THESE ZBA TO LOOK THROUGH THOSE AS WELL. THANK YOU. COULD I HAVE IT? SURE. DANIEL, FOR THE RECORD, COULD YOU TELL US WHEN THE LATE WHEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WERE ADOPTED? I BELIEVE IT WAS MARCH 5TH, 2015. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CAROL BECAUSE I KIND OF GOT LOST ON YOUR THING. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 17. WHOOPS. 50507. THAT'S THE DOUBLE LOT. OR IT'S THE ONE VERY NEXT DOOR. 17 FOUR. OKAY, OKAY. 17431. CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT THIS TIME. IT IS 3:42 P.M. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME. WRITE IT DOWN. THANK YOU. RYAN GANNON, GOOD TO SEE EVERYONE AGAIN. SO. YES. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU WERE HERE LAST TIME, SIR. BUT THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL PHOTO I DID AND WAS FROWNED UPON, SO I WISH IT WASN'T UP THERE AGAIN TODAY. BUT YOU KNOW, WHAT I DID AFTER THE MEETING IS I WENT BACK TO THE LOT, GOT SOME SIDE ALIGNED PHOTOS, WHICH I BELIEVE SHOULD BE IN Y'ALL'S PACKETS. ALSO HAD MY ENGINEER GO OUT THERE IN DRONE, WHICH IS WITH THE BETTER AERIAL PHOTO WITH A I BELIEVE IT WAS A RED OR ORANGE LINE. YELLOW. SO, IT WOULD BE THIS ONE WHERE IT'S THE LOT IS OUTLINED IN RED. IT'S LIKE THE FOURTH OR FIFTH PAGE. MAYBE. THANK YOU FOR. SO, I HAD MY ENGINEER GO OUT THERE AND DRONE IT AND THEN MARK WHERE THE TEN-FOOT LINE WOULD BE AT ON THE LOT, AND YOU CAN SEE THE STRAIGHT LINE THAT CROSSES DECKS. THAT WOULD BE EXCEEDING, JUST LIKE MY STAIRCASE IS MY DECKS. NOT EVEN THE PROBLEM. IT'S THE STAIRCASE THAT HANGS OVER THE SETBACK. BUT YES, I'M GLAD Y'ALL HAVE THESE PHOTOS. I WAS KIND OF NERVOUS WHEN I DIDN'T SEE THEM COME UP, BECAUSE THAT WAS KIND OF THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT THAT I WAS TRYING TO SHOW, I GUESS, TODAY. SO THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE. YOU KNOW, I KNOW I HEARD YOU MENTION, YOU KNOW, NO SURVEYS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T. I TRIED TO ASK MY SURVEY COMPANY, BUT THEY'RE NOT MY PROPERTIES. I CAN'T GO SURVEY, YOU KNOW, MY NEIGHBORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, I DID THE BEST I COULD WITH THE ABILITY I COULD. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS WAS KIND ENOUGH TO EVEN LEND ME THE, THE TAPE MEASURE. WHEN I WENT BACK OUT THERE AFTER THE ZONING MEETING AND WALK, WALK EACH PROPERTY LINE WITH ME, YOU KNOW, AND TRY TO HELP ME PROVE MY CASE. SO NOT TRYING TO DO ANYTHING WRONG BY ANY MEANS, TRYING TO DO IT BY THE BOOK AND THE RIGHT WAY. SO I'M COMING HERE NOT JUST BUILDING IT AND ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS LATER. BUT FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S MORE THAN TWO PROPERTIES THAT EXCEED THAT SETBACK, YOU KNOW, THEN THEN IT SHOULD HAVE A SPECIAL EXEMPTION REQUEST APPROVED. [00:15:08] AND THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO, YOU KNOW, BUILD A HOUSE FOR MY WIFE, MY KIDS AND MYSELF. SO, YOU KNOW, I HOPE THIS IS BETTER EVIDENCE. I KNOW LAST TIME, IT WAS NOT I FEEL LIKE I'VE DONE WHAT I CAN AS FAR AS SHOWING YOU THAT EVIDENCE. NOW, I SENT IN A LOT OF PHOTOS TO DANIEL. PROBABLY MORE THAN HE WANTED. BUT I JUST. I WANTED THERE TO BE, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH EVIDENCE THAT I COULD PROVIDE AS POSSIBLE TO YOU GUYS. SO YOU COULD UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING TO THE SITE. THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE HAS. ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS? YOU GO. WELL, YOU GO FIRST. OKAY. WELL, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON GOSH, IT MAYBE IS. WELL, IT'S TOWARDS THE END OF THE PHOTOS AND IT SAYS A TEN-FOOT SETBACK ON NEW CONSTRUCTION HOME. THIS IS A NEW CONSTRUCTION HOME. IT WILL BE. YES. NO, NO, BUT IT'S A I THINK IT'S A PICTURE. OH, THAT'S JUST A NEW HOME THAT'S BEING BUILT CURRENTLY. ON THE FAR END. SO, IT'S AN EMPTY LOT RIGHT NOW ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN. BUT THAT WAS JUST ONE THAT ME AND THE OTHER NEIGHBOR NOTICED. AND I MEAN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S THERE. BUT AND THE OTHER QUESTION, I THINK SOMEONE HAD ASKED ABOUT MY NEIGHBORS. RIGHT. I'M NOT QUESTIONING THAT HOUSE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT IS TWO LOTS. SO THAT'S NOT EVEN KIND OF IN MY EVIDENCE, I GUESS. YEAH. I THINK MINE ARE OUT OF ORDER. SO, YOU JUST, LIKE, START AT THE BEGINNING. SURE, SURE. WALK US AND TELL US WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. YEAH. OF COURSE. SO, IF YOU GO TO THIS PAGE, I MEAN, THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST ONE TO LOOK AT. I THINK IT'S PAGE 4 OR 5. THIS IS AN AERIAL PICTURE TAKEN BY A DRONE BY MY ENGINEER, WHO SCALED OUT WHERE THE TEN FEET WOULD BE, AND THEN HAVE A LINE KIND OF DRAWING THE, THE LENGTH OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, I GUESS. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, YOU'LL JUST SEE THAT SAME PICTURE WITHOUT THE LINE. THEN YOU'LL SEE THIS RECENT PHOTO OR THE PHOTO FROM LAST WEEK. I'M NOT REALLY GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT ONE. THE NEXT PAGE IS GOING TO BE LINE OF SIGHT PHOTOS. I KNOW, LAST MEETING. MISS SEILER HAD MENTIONED THAT THAT HAD BEEN USED IN THE PAST. SO, I WENT OUT THERE, GOT MY TAPE MEASURE, MEASURED OFF TEN FEET FROM MY SURVEY STICK, WHICH I HAD RECENTLY JUST HAD DONE BY THE SURVEY COMPANY, SO I KNEW EXACTLY WHERE MY PROPERTY LINES WERE. YOU KNOW, MARKED OFF TEN FEET. TOOK A PICTURE OF THE TAPE MEASURE. AND, YOU KNOW, I PUT A LINE SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE THAT TEN FEET WOULD LINE. AND ON THE, YOU KNOW, THE PICTURE RIGHT THERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S GOING INTO HOUSE ONE DECK, HOUSE TWO DECK ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT'S TOUGH TO SEE DUE TO THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, BUT THAT IS GOING UP THE STAIRCASE OF I BELIEVE IT'S 17425. BRISTOW. SO, IT WAS JUST AS THAT ONE. SO, THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. ARE WE FACING EAST AT THIS POINT? I MEAN, WHAT'S THE ORIENTATION OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, PLEASE? OKAY, SO IF WE'RE ON THIS PAGE RIGHT HERE. RIGHT. RIGHT. WE ARE LOOKING THE FIRST PHOTO. WE ARE LOOKING TO THE RIGHT OF MY LOT. SO I DON'T KNOW EAST. EAST. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE SECOND PHOTO WHERE YOU SEE A ONE AND A TWO. WE'RE LOOKING WEST. OH OKAY. YOU'RE LOOKING WEST. YES. AND THEN THE FOURTH. THE FOURTH IS BACK EAST. AND. YES, MA'AM. SO, WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH THAT ONE THAT CORRECT? YES. BECAUSE THAT THEY HAVE TWO LOTS. SO, I'M NOT QUESTIONING THAT, YOU KNOW. OKAY. THE NEXT IS JUST SOME GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES I TRY TO TAKE TO GIVE YOU A BETTER IDEA, BECAUSE I KNEW THE VICINITY MAP WASN'T VERY, I GUESS, REVEALING. I THINK YOU HAD MENTIONED YOU DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS TREES OR DECKS, SO I JUST TRIED TO GET SOME BETTER AERIAL PHOTOS, AND THESE WERE DONE BEFORE I HAD THE DRONE FOOTAGE, WHICH, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I THINK SHOWS THE BEST AERIAL FOOTAGE. I JUST DIDN'T HAVE IT YET. AND LIKE I SAID, I STARTED SENDING INFORMATION TO DANIEL THE DAY OF THE NEXT DAY, SO I JUST SENT IT AS I GOT IT. [00:20:01] AND THEN THE NEXT PHOTOS ARE JUST GOING TO BE DIFFERENT PICTURES THAT I GOT FROM THE HOMES, YOU KNOW, THAT I WAS SAYING HAD EXCEEDED BASED ON, ON THE YOU KNOW, THE SCALING. BUT, YOU KNOW, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE SENT ALL OF THIS IF I HAD HAD THAT DRONE FOOTAGE FIRST. I JUST, LIKE I SAID, I WANTED TO SEND AS MUCH INFORMATION AS I COULD AS I GOT IT JUST TO, YOU KNOW, TRY AND GET YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEEDED. SO THESE YELLOW ARROWS ON THESE SUBSEQUENT PAGES ARE. YES, MA'AM. REFERENCING PARTICULAR PHOTOS HERE. THEY'RE JUST REFERENCING THE DIFFERENT HOMES THAT I WOULD SAY EXCEED THAT SETBACK. AND YOU ARE RIGHT. I MEAN, THEY ARE OUT OF ORDER THE WAY THAT I HAD SENT HIM. BECAUSE IF YOU FLIP FURTHER BACK, THEN YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE I HAVE TAKEN A PICTURE OF THE ACTUAL TAPE MEASURE, JUST MORE TO SHOW, LIKE WHERE TEN FEET IS AT. BUT IN THEORY, THAT WAS PROBABLY ORIGINALLY SENT CLOSER TO THE LINE-OF-SIGHT PHOTOS. SO SORRY THAT THEY'RE KIND OF MIXED UP. SO, THIS PHOTOGRAPH HERE, WHAT IN WHAT ORIENTATION DO YOU HAVE? ARE YOU FACING EAST OR WEST? THIS ONE. IT'S LIKE THE SECOND. NO, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS. IT LOOKS LIKE WEST FROM HERE. BUT CAN YOU SHOW IT TO ME ONE MORE TIME? THIS WENT UP HERE. IS THAT EAST OR WEST? WEST FACING. THAT IS WEST. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. YES. YES, SIR. OKAY. YES, SIR. TELL YOU THAT. I JUST WAS GIVEN THE VICINITY MAP FROM THE CITY. THE CITY DID. THEY PROVIDED IT TO ME. BACK-TO-BACK AS WELL. IT APPEARS THAT THEY. IF THEY'RE BACK-TO-BACK. THEY CAN'T EXCEED. THE TEN-FOOT LIMIT. SURE, I COULD AGREE. I COULD AGREE WITH THAT. THEN THAT'S FINE IF THEY DON'T NEED TO BE SURE. YOU KNOW, NOT IN CONFORMANCE. YOU KNOW WHAT THESE LOTS ARE? I JUST. EXCUSE ME. JAMES. YES, SIR. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR HIM? HE ANSWERED IT. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, I AGREE THOUGH, THAT IF THEY ARE OWNED BY THE SAME THEN YES, THEY DON'T NEED TO MEET IT. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. WE'RE GOOD. ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? SIR, DO YOU HAVE IS THIS YOUR FIRST HOUSE TO BUILD ON THE ISLAND? YES, MA'AM. WERE YOU AWARE OF OUR ELDERS AT THE TIME THAT YOU BROUGHT YOUR PLANS? WHEN I PURCHASED THE LOT, THE PLANS, ENGINEERING, EVERYTHING WAS SOLD TO ME WITH THE LOT BY THE PREVIOUS LOT OWNER. OH, OKAY. THAT'S WEIRD. SO IT WAS OUT OF CONFORMANCE WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT. I MEAN, THERE'S THERE'S NO STRUCTURE THERE, BUT I. RIGHT, RIGHT. YOU HAVEN'T BUILT ANYTHING YET. THAT'S WHY I'M WONDERING, LIKE, WHY ARE WE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION WHEN YOU HAVEN'T? I HAVE TO HAVE THE EXCEPTION TO GET MY PERMIT TO START BUILDING. AND CHANGE THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN. YOU COULD CHANGE THE PLAN. THAT'S AN OPTION. I DON'T KNOW HOW EXPENSIVE THAT WOULD BE. IT'S AN OPTION. BUT FROM WHAT I'M TOLD IS IF THERE'S AT LEAST TWO OTHER HOMES ON THE STREET THAT ARE EXCEEDING IT, THEN A SPECIAL EXEMPTION SHOULD BE REQUESTED BASED ON THE CITY. OKAY. SO, THERE'S NO YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN ANY OTHER RECOURSE UNTIL YOU CAME HERE, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY, I COULD SHRINK I COULD HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE SYSTEM, AND WE WERE THE LAST RESORT. [00:25:03] NO, MA'AM. I COULD SHRINK MY DECK, BUT IT'S A TEN-FOOT DECK, AND I'D RATHER NOT DO THAT. HAD THERE NOT BEEN OTHER DECKS THAT WERE EXCEEDING THIS LOT LINE OR THIS REAR SETBACK, I WOULDN'T BE COMING HERE. I WOULD HAVE JUST DONE IT. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THERE ARE OTHER DECKS THAT ARE EXCEEDING THE REAR SETBACK. SO, I WAS TOLD ABOUT THIS. AT FIRST, I DIDN'T KNOW. MR. LUNSFORD INFORMED ME THAT THAT IS THE CASE, THOUGH, AS FAR AS GUIDELINES GO. SO THAT'S WHY I'VE TAKEN THE NECESSARY STEPS. I GOT IN TOUCH WITH CENTER POINT, HAD THEM TELL ME THAT THERE'S NO EASEMENT BACK THERE ANYMORE. THERE WAS A RELEASE OF EASEMENT BACK IN OH NINE, SO I PROVIDED THAT TO THE CITY. THEY'RE OKAY WITH THAT. AND THIS IS THE LAST STEP YOU KNOW, TO TRY AND GET THIS SPECIAL REQUEST AND HAVE HAD I GONE THERE AND THERE WEREN'T OTHER, LIKE I SAID, DECKS EXCEEDING IT, THEN, YOU KNOW, IT IS WHAT IT IS, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. SO, THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM OUR LAST MEETING, YOU HAVE WORKED WITH THE CITY ON THIS? YES, MA'AM. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT TOLD ME ABOUT THE DIFFERENT WAYS TO GET THE EXCEPTION. I WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN, AND I PROBABLY JUST WOULD HAVE SHRUNK IN MY DECK. I'D RATHER NOT DO THAT. YOU KNOW, IF I HAVE TO, I HAVE TO, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A WAY TO GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, I WAS TOLD. AND AFTER THE RESEARCH I'VE DONE, IT SEEMS LIKE I SHOULD BE GIVEN IT. BUT ULTIMATELY, THAT IS NOT MY DECISION. SO. ANYONE? ANYTHING ELSE OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE EXTRA. THE EXTRA PICTURES. YES, MA'AM. EVERYTHING THAT WAS THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. YES, MA'AM. APPRECIATE THAT. THANKS FOR LETTING ME COME BACK. SO. NOTHING ELSE FROM THE APPLICANT. OKAY, YOU BE SEATED. THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. DOES ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS? YES, SIR. PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME. RIGHT. YOUR NAME. AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. WHEN STATE GUARDSMEN ARE ON THE, WHAT'S THE ADDRESS? 743 BRISTOW DRIVE. THAT'S A LOT. I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I'M SPEAKING TO OBJECT TO THE EXCEPTION. SO, I REPRESENT SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS ABOUT THIS EXCEPTION. I'VE LIVED ON HERE FOR THREE YEARS NOW, AND WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LAST THREE YEARS. BEEN WORKING VERY HARD TO BUILD UP THE DUNES. WE BUILT YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE AWARE, WE BUILT FENCING RECENTLY ON THE BEACH TO HELP BUILD UP OUR DUNES TO PROTECT ALL OF OUR PROPERTIES AND WERE VERY MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT BUILDING UP THESE DUNES OVER THE YEARS TO PROTECT ALL OF OUR PROPERTIES FROM THE NEXT STORM, ET CETERA. AND WE OBJECT TO ANY HOUSES BEING THE NEW. WE WELCOME NEW HOUSING, ALL THE NEW TAXES IT BRINGS IN AND NEW NEIGHBORS HAPPY TO HAVE NEW NEIGHBORS AND ALL THE TAX REVENUE IT BRINGS IN. BUT WE OBJECT TO THIS EXCEPTION GOING OVER TOWARD THE BEACH, ANY NEW HOUSING, WE WOULD LIKE IT TO CONFORM TO THE LAW AND BUILD BACK ON THE LOT, NOT OVER TO PROTECT OUR DUNES. WE WANT TO LET THESE DUNES BUILD UP AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. IF THE HOME AND THE DECK CAN'T BE RECONSTRUCTED, I'M NOT ONE TO SUGGEST SOMEONE BUILD A SMALLER DECK THAN THEY WANT, BUT WE WOULD AS NEIGHBORS. WE WOULD REQUEST THAT AN EXCEPTION BE MADE TO PUSH IT BACK FOUR FEET RATHER THAN FOUR FEET TOWARD THE BEACH. WHICH IS ALSO GOING TO INFRINGE ON THE VIEWS OF NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES. AND ALL OF US RENT OUR HOMES OUT FROM TIME TO TIME. WE WANT UNIMPEDED VIEWS. AND IF THE PROJECT IS TOO BIG FOR THE LOT, THEN WE REQUEST THAT IT BE EITHER BE MADE SMALLER OR BE PUSHED TOWARD THE STREET FOUR FEET, SO IT CONFORMS TO CONFORMS TO THE LOT THAT IT AND DOES NOT GO OVER ONTO THE CITY PROPERTY WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD UP THESE DUNES. AND I DON'T KNOW IF I HIT MY THREE MINUTES YET OR NOT. 45 SECONDS. 45 SECONDS. [00:30:01] SURE. I MADE ALL THE POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE. I'M NOT SURE IF THE IF THE IF THE APPLICANTS PROVED THAT. BUT IF YOU. I LIVED THERE FOR THREE YEARS. AND IF YOU LOOK UP AND DOWN, UP AND DOWN THE BEACH, OTHER THAN MY LOT, BECAUSE I HAVE A DOUBLE LOT, NOBODY'S PUSHED. NOBODY'S PUSHED FORWARD. EVERYONE SPED BACK RIGHT AROUND THE SAME LINE. WE'D LIKE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. UNLESS THERE'S SOME IMPORTANT REASON WHY THIS? WHY THIS PARTICULAR HOME SHOULD BE GRANTED EXCEPTION TO PUSH FURTHER BEYOND THEIR LOT? WE'D REQUEST THAT IT BE LIMITED TO THE LOT IT'S ON, BE LINED WITH ALL THE OTHER HOMES AND TO MAXIMIZE THE MAXIMIZE THE DUNES ON THE BEACH SIDE SO WE CAN BUILD THEM UP AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A. YES. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OH, ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SO, AT THIS TIME I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 401. MISS FAIRWEATHER. THANK YOU. WE STARTED OUT THIS MEETING WITH WHAT'S KIND OF WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD. SO I'LL JUST MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. BASED ON SOME OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD. AND SO MY FIRST COMMENT IS THAT THE BOARD'S PURVIEW IS NOT TO REDESIGN THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. YOU ARE TO REVIEW THE APPLICANTS REQUEST BASED ON THE GUIDELINES THAT THE CITY HAS AND WHETHER OR NOT THE REQUEST FALLS WITHIN THOSE GUIDELINES. AND IF THE REQUEST FALLS WITHIN THOSE GUIDELINES, THEN YOU BASE YOUR DECISION BASED ON THAT. AND SO IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT CAN BE REDESIGNED TO COMPORT IN SOME OTHER WAY. THIS IS NOT A BOARD OF LAST RESORT. IT'S WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRESENT HIS CASE. FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY. AND WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS FULFILLED WHAT NEEDS TO BE FULFILLED TO MEET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY WHAT YOU SAID. THE REASON THAT WE'RE SITTING UP HERE. IS THAT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THE CITY. TO THE STAFF AND TO THE APPLICANTS. RIGHT? RIGHT. AND THAT OBLIGATION IS TO, IN MY MIND, IS TO UPHOLD. THE REGULATIONS AS FAR AS WE POSSIBLY CAN, UNLESS THERE IS SOME REASONABLE ARGUMENT GIVEN TO US TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION. IN MY MIND. THE ELDERS COME FIRST. BUT WE DON'T SEE. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S IN MY MIND, THAT'S THE DEFAULT. SO WHEN WE HEAR LIKE OPTIONS THAT ARE PRESENTED IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING. I UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T SUGGEST THAT, BUT DOES THAT GIVE THE APPLICANT RECOURSE? LIKE IF SOMETHING DIDN'T WORK OUT. WOULD THE APPLICANT BE ABLE TO COME BACK TO THIS BODY WITH ANOTHER IDEA OR ANOTHER OPTION? I THINK I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. THE GENERAL FEELING IS. IF. AN APPLICANT'S REQUEST. DOES NOT. DOESN'T RECEIVE A POSITIVE RESPONSE TO GO FORWARD BASED ON A BOARD'S DECISION. CAN THEY REWORK THEIR DESIGN? I MEAN, THAT GOES FOR ANY BOARD, I THINK, OR FOR ANY PERMIT APPLICATION OR ANY DEVELOPMENT DESIGN. I'M SURE IT CAN BE REWORKED TO CONFORM TO WHAT'S NEEDED. BUT I THINK WHEN YOU'RE SITTING AS A COMMISSIONER FOR THIS TYPE OF BOARD, IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION FOR THE APPLICANT, DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION FOR THE APPLICANT. [00:35:03] YOU HAVE TO REVIEW WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED AND THE REQUEST IS A, IT'S NOT THAT THEY ALSO HAVE OPTION C, THE REQUEST IS A. AND SO, YOU REVIEW IT ON REQUEST A. MY CONCERN IS WHEN WE START REDESIGNING. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. AND COMMENTS MADE THAT WELL, YOU CAN MAKE THE DECK SHORTER, OR YOU CAN MOVE THE PROPERTY FURTHER. THAT THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD AND THAT'S YOU KNOW, THAT'S POSSIBLE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED. AND SO, IF WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED FALLS WITHIN THE GUIDELINES. WHAT ARE YOUR FEELINGS ON THAT? IF WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE GUIDELINES? WHAT ARE YOUR FEELINGS ON THAT? AND THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION. BUT IT'S A JUDGMENT. WELL, SO IT'S THE LDR PROVIDES FOR THIS. THIS IS A TOOL THAT'S PROVIDED BY THE LDR. AND SO, THE CRITERIA ARE A REAR YARD EXCEPTION WHERE THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF ANY TWO OR MORE LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK DO NOT MEET THE REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE OF THESE REGULATIONS. SO THAT'S ONE CRITERION. AND THEN THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHALL GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ONLY IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THEN ONLY WHEN THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDS THAT SUCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VALUE AND THE USE OF ADJACENT AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OR BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. SO, WE HAVE THE REAR YARD EXCEPTION CAN BE GRANTED WHERE THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF ANY TWO OR MORE LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK DO NOT MEET THE REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS OF THESE REGULATIONS. THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN THAT THAT IS THE CASE, AND THEN THE ZONING BOARD HAS TO FIND THAT SUCH. THIS EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VALUE AND THE USE OF ADJACENT AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OR BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO CRITERIA THAT YOU'RE USING IN YOUR DECISION. AND THEN CATHERINE. SO, THE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST ARE A ONE, TWO AND THREE THE PARAMETERS FOR WHAT WE CONSIDER THE PUBLIC INTEREST. NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. THE. UNDER APPROVAL STANDARDS NUMBER THREE. YES, I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES. BUT UNDER APPROVAL STANDARDS. NUMBER THREE THAT SHE JUST READ. IT'S NOT IN OUR PACKET. IT'S IN THE PACKET OF THE OTHER. IT WASN'T INCLUDED WITH OUR MATERIALS. OKAY. NO, IT'S IN THE PACKET FOR THE OTHER CASE. OKAY. SO, WE TYPICALLY INCLUDE WITH YOUR CASES THE MOTION GUIDE. SO, IF WE DIDN'T INCLUDE A MOTION GUIDE THAT WAS OUR, IT'S NOT THE MOTION GUIDE. YOU TYPICALLY INCLUDE THE LDR. YEAH. SO, YOU HAVE THE, YEAH, WE HAVE ONE PAGE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE WHERE, SHOW ME WHERE APPROVAL STANDARDS ARE ON THAT. IT'S THE CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING. OH, HERE. THERE. THAT'S WHAT I'M. YEAH. WELL, THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST. SO THAT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL. WHAT'S THAT? YOU'RE REFERRING TO A STAFF REPORT FOR A SPECIAL FOR A VARIANCE. WHAT THIS IS, IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND THEY'RE DIFFERENT IN THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL ARE DIFFERENT. SO, WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING A VARIANCE, YOU GET THAT LONG LIST, AND YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH ITEM AND VERIFY EACH ITEM HAS BEEN MET IN SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. THE CRITERIA ARE A LOT DIFFERENT. AND SO, IT'S AN EXHIBIT B UNDER THE MOTION GUIDE. YOU HAVE TO FIND EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING THAT IT WILL NOT AFFECT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VALUE AND USE OF ADJACENT AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OR WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST VARIANCE. YEAH. SO, THIS IS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THE OTHER ONE IS FOR VARIANCE. SO, I'VE GOT ONE MORE QUESTION. MY GUESS IS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS MAYBE CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF GRANDFATHERING. AND SO, A LOT OF THINGS WERE BUILT BEFORE THE ELDERS. SO, THEY ALREADY EXIST. AND THEN PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING IN ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THAT'S, I THINK, VALID. SO, WE GET A LOT OF REQUESTS LIKE THESE CONVERSATIONS, LIKE THESE AT THE COUNTER WHERE WE'RE INTERACTING WITH THE PUBLIC, AND PEOPLE WILL AUTOMATICALLY POINT TO THEIR NEIGHBORS AND SAY, WELL, MY NEIGHBOR HAS THIS CONDITION, MY NEIGHBOR HAS THAT CONDITION AND A SPECIAL CONDITION. SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS A TOOL THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ALIGN WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE THE LAWS WERE ADOPTED. [00:40:14] GIVE ME A SECOND TO CATCH UP. PLEASE. DO WE DO WE NEED ANY OTHER DISCUSSION HERE? YES, WE DO. THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING NEXT. ALL RIGHT. SO, AT THIS POINT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY ONE THING THAT CAME UP IN CONVERSATION, I BELIEVE. JUST TO CLARIFY, LOTS LIKE 17425, 17423 THE APPLICANT SLOT, WHERE YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATE LOTS THAT ARE FRONT TO BACK, THE REAR YARD SETBACK WILL STILL APPLY. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO 17431 BECAUSE THOSE WERE REPLANTED TOGETHER. SO JUST TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION, I THINK THAT CAME UP WITH SOME CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT. SO, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, SAY, 17431, WHERE TWO LOTS WERE PLATTED TOGETHER AND SAY THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 17431, WHERE YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATE LOTS FRONT TO BACK. THERE'S STILL A SETBACK FROM THOSE LOTS, A REAR SETBACK, I THINK IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THAT DID NOT APPLY, BUT THAT WILL APPLY BECAUSE THAT PROPERTY LINE IS STILL THERE. WE STILL CONSIDER SETBACKS FROM THOSE NOW OPENED UP. ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS. I THOUGHT WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS, THAT WHERE YOU SEE THE TWO ADDRESSES BEING THE SAME, LIKE 17425, THERE'S TWO OF THEM ON TWO SEPARATE PARCELS. THAT IS NOT MY ASSUMPTION, WAS THE SOUTHERNMOST PARCEL. BELONGS TO ANOTHER LOT, TO ANOTHER OWNER, PERHAPS THAT USED TO BE ON A STREET THAT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE. THAT'S ERODED AWAY. YEAH, AND THAT MAY BE A CORRECT ASSUMPTION TO MAKE. HOWEVER, THE SALIENT POINT HERE IS THOSE PROPERTY LINES BETWEEN THOSE LOTS ARE STILL EXISTENT. AND THAT MEANS THAT STILL ESTABLISHES A REAR SETBACK THAT MAY APPLY TO THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. YES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, HERE WE GO AGAIN. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, PLEASE. YES, MA'AM. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. DUE TO THE FACT THAT A REAR YARD EXCEPTION IS REASONABLE. WHERE THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF TWO OR MORE LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK DON'T MEET THE REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS OF THESE REGULATIONS, AND APPROVAL WILL NOT AFFECT ADVERSELY THE VALUE AND USE OF ADJACENT AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES. GO AHEAD. CAROL. WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. THAT HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED. WHAT WE DISCUSSED IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR COMING TO THIS BODY AND PRESENTING A CASE. WHAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD IS HOW THIS MIGHT AFFECT THE VALUE AND USE OF ADJACENT AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND WE HAVE NOT HEARD HOW THIS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. SO PLEASE TELL ME HOW THAT WORKS. I DON'T THINK ANYTHING HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THEN I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND WE HAVE SEEN THAT OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE DECKS OR STAIRS THAT DO EXCEED THE TEN-FOOT SETBACK. AND OUR GUIDELINES FOR THE EXCEPTIONS IS IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THEY CAN GET AN EXCEPTION. SO I DON'T AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND OR CAN'T THINK OF HOW SOMEONE'S DECK IS IT? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST THE DECK OR IF IT'S THE STAIRS. I THINK IT'S THE DECK. SO IT'S ABOVE THE DECK IS THE PART THAT IS GOING OVER THE SETBACK. IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL BUILDING ITSELF. IT'S NOT THE PIERS THAT ARE HAVING TO OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU PILINGS. YEAH, JUST THE STAIRS. OKAY. I DON'T SO, YOU KNOW, FOR ONE THING, WHERE HE BUILDS IS BEING ABLE TO PRESERVE OTHER PROPERTIES. VIEWS IS NOT A CONSIDERATION. [00:45:02] I MEAN, WHEN YOU BUY A BUILDING, THAT'S IT. AND IF SOMEBODY BUILDS SOMETHING IN FRONT OF YOU OR TO THE SIDE OF YOU AND OBSCURES YOUR VIEW, THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT GOES. AND SO HAVING THE STAIRS AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE DUNES. NOT THAT THAT'S EVEN I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THAT'S PERTINENT, BUT WELL, YEAH. I MEAN, I'M ALL FOR PROTECTING THE DUNES, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT STAIRS ARE GOING TO BE GET IN THE WAY OF DUNES PROTECTION. THAT IS AN ISSUE. SHADING IS AN ISSUE. THE QUESTION IS DOES THIS PROPERTY AND THIS IS FOR STAFF, I GUESS THIS PROPERTY FALL WITHIN THE BEACH ACCESS AND DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT PROCESS? IT'S WITHIN THE BEACHFRONT PERMIT PROCESS? YES. HAS THIS PROPERTY GOTTEN A BEACHFRONT PERMIT? I DON'T BELIEVE I CAN ANSWER THAT. AND YES, IT HAS AS PRESENTED. SO YEAH. OUR COASTAL RESOURCES ALREADY RENTED PAST THE GLO, AND THEY HAD NO, NO CONCERNS. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THEN THAT DOES ESTABLISH THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE HARMFUL. CORRECT. IF THE GLO SAYS SO. RIGHT. YEAH OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSED. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, LET ME CATCH UP AGAIN. STAND BY. HE'S BREATHING. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. OH. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. ITEM SEVEN. NEW BUSINESS. WHO WITH YOU THIS TIME? THIS IS 20 4Z-004 5210 AVENUE S 22 NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RETURNED. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE GULFSTREAM LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. ARTICLE THREE COMMERCIAL ADDENDUM REGARDING MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE GULFSTREAM LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMMERCIAL ADDENDUM REGARDING LOT WIDTH IN ORDER TO REPLAT ONE LOT INTO TWO. THE REQUIRED LOT WIDTH IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS 40FT AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 34FT. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED SURVEY IN EXHIBIT B FOR THE PROPOSED LOT. RECONFIGURATION. AGAIN, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS LOT WIDTH FROM 40FT TO 34. THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL STANDARDS CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE TWO AND THREE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT. AND NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS. THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND HERE ARE THE PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY TO THE SOUTH, NORTHEAST AND WEST. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES, COLONEL. THANK YOU. ADRIEL, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING. WHAT? THE LOTS. HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE DIVIDED. YEAH. CAN YOU SHOW US? THIS IS A VERY LIGHT PRINT. I COULDN'T REALLY SEE HOW IT'S PROPOSED. NOT SURE. MY VISION IS MUCH BETTER THAN YOURS, BUT I'LL. I'LL GIVE IT A SHOT. SO. YEAH. THE, THE LOT 5210 WHICH IS LABELED AS LOT B WHICH WOULD BE THE THE WESTERN LOT. IF YOU ARE ON AVENUE S THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS. OH, HERE WE GO. SO MUCH BETTER. SURVEY THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS 34FT AND IT GOES IT GOES FROM SOUTH TO NORTH ABOUT 61FT, AND THEN IT TURNS EAST YOU KNOW, QUITE A FEW FEET THERE, AND THEN IT GOES BACK UP NORTH ANOTHER 58FT OR SO. AGAIN, THIS IS A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE. AND THE LOT WIDTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDR IS MEASURED AT THE BUILDING LINE. IN THIS CASE, THERE'S NO PLATTED BUILDING LINE. SO THE DEFAULT WOULD BE THE SETBACK LINE. IN THIS CASE THE SETBACK LINE IS ZERO. SO IT WOULD BE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. AT THE PROPERTY LINE YOU'LL SEE THE MEASUREMENT OF 34FT OKAY. [00:50:04] AS PART. WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO SEE THIS? BARBARA. Y'ALL GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. I'M GOOD. OKAY. SO, ADRIEL. ONLY ONE LOT. THE LOT B IS IN QUESTION THEN, CORRECT? YEAH. ULTIMATELY THE ULTIMATELY THE RE PLOT THAT COMES AFTER IF THIS BOARD DECIDES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVAL, THAT WILL IMPACT BOTH LOTS. BUT AT YOU KNOW, THE THE THE BASIS THE PREMISES OF THIS REQUEST IS ONLY FOR LOT B, WHICH IS THE UNDERSIZED LOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDR. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. Y'ALL NEED THAT BACK. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT, HERE WE GO. IT IS NOW 421. AT THIS TIME, I'LL CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING. TO ORDER. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? NOW. COME ON UP, MR.. GERHARDT. MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, THAT'S EVEN BETTER. SURE. IT'S BEEN PURCHASED BY THE DECEDENT MANY YEARS AGO AS ONE TRACT. SHE HAD RENTED BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES TO TWO INDIVIDUALS, BOTH OF WHOM SHE APPARENTLY HAD GREAT REGARD FOR, AND WHEN SHE PASSED AWAY, SHE LEFT THEM TO THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS. I KNOW OF NO OTHER WAY TO DO THIS OTHER THAN TO SPLIT THIS UP. OTHER THAN DESTROYING ONE OF THE TWO STRUCTURES. AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE TO ME. SO WE'RE ASKING THAT THE EXCEPTION FOR THE 40 FOOT FRONTAGE BE GIVEN A GRANTED A VARIANCE, THE THE LOT SIZE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS NOT IN QUESTION AS THE LOT SIZE WOULD HAVE TO BE NO LESS THAN 4000FT², BOTH OF WHICH ARE FAR IN EXCESS OF. ONCE THIS PROPERTY IS DIVIDED, SHOULD Y'ALL PERMIT THAT TO HAPPEN? AGAIN, NOT SOMETHING THAT'S AN INTENT TO EVADE ANY RESTRICTIONS AND NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A LADY BEING KIND TO PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN GOOD TO HER. AND SO SHE LEFT THEM THE PROPERTY. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS AND GET A VARIANCE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THIS REPLAT GRANTED, FILED FOR RECORD, AND THEN GIVE DEEDS TO THE PERSONS WHO ARE ENTITLED. RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHTY, SIR. THANK YOU. AND I'M SORRY. I'LL APOLOGIZE FOR THE LACK OF GOOD COPIES AND NOT A COLOR COPY. WHAT? DO YOU MAKE THINGS MUCH SIMPLER. OH. I'M SORRY. ANAND. YES, MA'AM. JUST STILL JUST ONE FULL LOT. IT WAS GREAT. IT'S ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE, FOUR LOTS. THERE ARE 25 FOOT WIDTH LOTS. TOTAL WIDTH OF 100FT. IT WAS ALL GRANTED TO MISS EVERTS IN 1997, MAYBE 87. I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH, EXACTLY, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT HAS ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE THIS CONFIGURATION OTHER THAN THIS SURVEY. SO THE INTENTION IS TO HAVE THE. CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. ANYTHING ELSE OF THE APPLICANT WHILE HE'S STILL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE STILL HERE IN PUBLIC HEARING. SIR, YOU'RE LIKE THE LAST ONE LEFT IN THE ROOM. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY REGARDING THIS? NO. ALL RIGHTY. FAIR ENOUGH. WELL, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. AND I WILL THANK HIM FOR HIS SERVICE, AS HE IS A FORMER MEMBER OF THE ZONING BOARD. OF WHAT? YES. [00:55:01] OKAY. I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW YOU. IT'S SOME TIME AGO. WOW. HURRICANE IKE. ALRIGHTY. AT THIS TIME, IT IS NOW 425. AND I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE ZBA FOR A MOTION. HAVE TO READ ALL OF THIS. YEAH, YEAH YOU DO. I THINK YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME QUESTION. I MEAN, I THINK YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE SAME QUESTION. I ALWAYS GET STUCK. I JUST HAVE TO READ SOMEBODY ELSE'S. HERE WE GO. WE GOT ONE HERE SUSAN TYLER SHOW TODAY. SO I MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BECAUSE THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE IS ROOTED IN SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY THAT DON'T GENERALLY EXIST ON OTHER PROPERTIES, BECAUSE THIS IS A BEQUEST THAT SOMEONE HAS GIVEN TO TWO GOOD TENANTS. DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE STRICT TERMS OF THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WOULD IMPOSE. OH. OH, SURE. AND THE BEQUEST DOES WHAT? AND THE BEQUEST GIVES THE TWO PROPERTIES OR THE TWO BUSINESSES? SHE WANTED THE TWO BUSINESSES TO HAVE THEIR THE LAND OR THEIR THAT THEIR BUSINESSES COULD CONTINUE TO EXIST ON THE PROPERTIES TIES THEM TOGETHER. WELL THE THE BEQUEST THE BEQUEST DOESN'T TIE THEM TOGETHER. THE BEQUEST SEPARATES THEM AND LETS THEM HAVE SEPARATE DEEDS. IS THAT NOT CORRECT? I MEAN, I THINK THAT, YES. YEAH. AND AND I GOT TO SAY THIS, THE ONLY OTHER WAY TO DO IT IS THAT ONE'S DAUGHTER COULD MARRY THE OTHER ONE'S SON, AND IT COULD IT WOULD SOLVE EVERYTHING. JUST, YOU KNOW, I HAD TO INTRODUCE A LITTLE LEVITY, YOU KNOW? SO CAN I CONTINUE? I THINK WE GET THE GIST SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE SEPARATE. YES. CORRECT. THE THE AND THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THAT IT DOES NOT ALLOW APPLICANTS TO IMPAIR THE APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS FOR SELF IMPOSED HARDSHIPS, HARDSHIPS BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE OR INCONVENIENCE OR CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPECIAL BUT THAT ARE ACTUALLY. I'M SO SORRY. ARE COMMON TO MANY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT AND FURTHER. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT AMONG THE UPON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY'RE ZONED, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR SERVICES, AND PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE DEGREE OF VARIANCE ALLOWED FROM THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IS THE LEAST THAT'S NECESSARY TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE IDENTIFIED UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. THE VARIANCE IS NOT GOING TO BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF THE LDR THAT COULD BE USED FOR THE SAME OR COMPARABLE EFFECT, AND BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE ELDERS IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE. AMEN. THERE YOU GO. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NO DISCUSSION, THEN. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL OPPOSED. SAME SIGN AND THE MOTION IS CARRIED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEEING THAT THERE IS. LET'S SEE. HOLD ON. YEP. NO OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE US. WE ARE ADJOURNED. YAY! AND I'M NOW ON VACATION AGAIN. ARE YOU GUYS. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.