Board of Adjustment

And of the call stands bunch of last indivisible, with and justice for all. >> Couple of notes here this as we begin place of want to remind you all to turn your cell phones off or at least September to mute. And that when you addressing the committee or whatever, if you could please speak into the microphone. Like to take the role Yes, Mister chair. >> Present. This is a here. Mister Ek president miss him present status. President. Thank you. >> And then everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes. it. Yes, yes, it a don't know it. Questions. Concerns or modifications. Small small correction. On Page 3 under presentation. That references I'm not that rare. you are. You are you recall we >> thank All right. With that can we get someone to make up to? You can just do a voice vote. Okay. please voice both in place. Yay. >> Yeah, yes. Yes. Thank you. And then if you could, so fast, John. But John's not here. If you go over closet judicial proceeding and it's where everyone in place. >> Well, the afternoon, Mister Chairman, thank you. And thank you to the board. My name is Jaden Young, filling in for John today, but with you one other time. it's nice to see everybody again. As you know, you have quasi-judicial proceedings before you today and that type of proceeding. It is not the board's function to make law but rather to apply law that has already been established by the City Commission. This morning, we consider evidence in such proceedings of the law considers competent, substantial and relevant to the issues. If that evidence shows that the applicant has met the established criteria that this board should find in favor of the applicant. Conversely, if the evidence demonstrated the applicant has failed to meet any of the established criteria in this portion fight against the applicant. Each of you on the board must weigh the competent substantial evidence provided conclusion based on whether the established criteria have been satisfied. All witnesses testified was give their testimony under oath and let's give their name and address for the record all testimony and questioning must address matters that are relevant and material to the issues under consideration. You have established procedures for these meetings that are set forth in your and the rules procedure that I have with me. And at this time I'll ask anybody who intends to testify before the board please stand. Raise your hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give before this board is the truth? The whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Okay. And then if we could have the of these. Conduct. The pledge of conduct. >> Sure, we may disagree, but we will be respectful of one another. We will direct all comments to issues. You know, Mister Chairman. I don't know that we usually do this. I'm sorry. I'm not been here for awhile. We should disclose any ex parte communications that we've had. And as well as any site prior to proceeding as anyone at any either of those. >> No, I have not. >> I did visit Walmart's site. And I have not gone on 6 that because 6. The dot this and that kind of had no ex parte communication. >> I know parte communications site visits. I have not. >> No communication or site. Visit this. No parte communications. I did visit the sites. >> All right. So those are you visited sites of those site visits in light of the site visits able to render a fair and impartial decision. And today's applications. >> I that I could do this. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And Allison, if you could be. The petition. 26 that's BA and Dash. 0, 5, >> And then just going over that time limits. Also 20 minutes for petitioners, 15 minutes for questions. 15 minutes for rebuttal in 5 minutes for public speakers. Thank you. Petition number. 26 Ba n '05, the petitioner Marc Rich Lee Brenchley on behalf of Walmart stores, East LP Prop owner is seeking to variances to increase the maximum aggregate square footage of wall signs within the North Trail. So district and to increase the maximum square footage for directional sign pursuant to zoning could section 7, one, 10, 18, no business shall display more than 3 loss signs with the total aggregate area of more than 100 square feet. Regardless of building frontage, the applicant is requesting an increase in the maximum total loss. Sine ag, its square footage from 100 square feet. 297.9, 3 square feet for total variance of 97.9, 3 square feet to accommodate 3 rebranded signs. The previous variance 12, one was approved to increase the aggregate will signage from 100 square feet to 190.3, one square feet for total variance. 90.3, 1 square feet which still exists today. Therefore, the current variance request is an increase from the previous total Wall sign variance, allowance by 7.2, 6, 2 square feet pursuant to zoning Code Section 7, 1, of 6, a 9 directional signs shall not exceed 2 square feet in area. The applicant is requesting a second variance to increase a directional sign above the 2 square foot maximum. To 37.1 square feet for total variance. Request to 35.1 square feet. The approximate 3.6 acre property located at 3501 to maybe trail is located in the North Trail zone district and the North Trail overlay district. The variances are requested to allow for easier to maintain consistency with typical Walmart branded signage for Wal-Mart stores. The specific variance is being sought is generally outlined above are one a variance from Section 7, one, 10, 18 to allow dad, rugged area of 197.9, 3 square feet of signage were an advocate of 100 square feet is allowed for total variance of 97.9, 3 square feet into a variance from Section 7, 1, of 6, a 9 to allow a 37.0. One square foot directional sign. We're a maximum. 2 square-foot directional sign is allowed for total variance. A 35.1 square feet. The board should utilize criteria is one through 5 outlined under zoning Code section 4.66. P as the basis in making their determination. Thank you. All right. And if petitioners could please step forward >> give us your name, please police said, oh, yes. If you would mind and take that's case to utilize the overhead projector cup. Make your Christmas Yes, sir. Thank you. >> 1000 mentioned this cheeks, additional square feet. Can you state your name? For the record this morning? Thank you. Mark Brenchley. I had to assist 37 90 beacon Ridgeway Clermont Florida. I have variance applications for Walmart now for about 5 years. Walmart is rebranding all of their signs throughout the nation. change in the color going from that terrible green to what they call the room or blue. And so that's that's the background of their signage in some areas of the building to be And there also changing the sparks and which is that You know deal. adding. The name of the community in each case. So in this case, they're adding. Sarah some market to it. The Sarasota market, the Wal-Mart and the Sparks under the 3 signs that. Take the take. The total area, 297 feet. That the 4th sign was told when comply for the application. The pickup sign. Is a directional sign that your definitions. And the definition and the size requirement. And that's it to 2 square feet. Pick up side is a new sign. Respect before Wal-Mart because COVID. Started anew. Transaction period for almost all retail People would come to the store and pick up. Those commodities that they had ordered online or on the phone to avoid personal contact this is a new addition to their. at typical signage opportunities. Now. In some air, some jurisdictions in Florida at the Walmart or the pick-up site is classified as a directional sign. But in most of them is not classified as a site. So that's why we had to seek a sign area variance for the pickup sign. To allow that to be. Okay. It always adjacent to the area of one mark frontage. That is where the people go to pick out, sent away finding. Benefit. the other major signs are located above the main entrance, which is also and we've finding. It's important to note that this this building is 248 feet frontage. From 200 feet. The longest setback to about 2, 40 on the shortest surrounded him for streets. So it is typically 3 or 4 times greater setback than a normal commercial. A store. And so the larger signs could benefit. The identification as well as the way find those same benefits. Certainly, Mister been the reason why the variance. Was approved in 2012 too Walmart to increase the signs from 10290 Square Feet. And this increases that mentioned something 7 change square feet larger. I think it's important to note that as I mentioned, the building is 248 feet wide. If we fit. 7.35. Foot. Spaces, rental spaces into a 248. A white frontage as if it was going to be a retail center with 7 stores. There will be a top of 700 square feet of signage. But course, Wal-Mart is limited to 100 and 100 because entity single building frontage. I can go over these points one through 5. If you wish or do you have any questions that you ask me? >> Well, I thought that chip material was very, very beneficial. I did have the opportunity. That's top 5 site. So I don't have any questions about the information. Sure. Presenting. We need to play. I do have a question. >> with this variance right now we saw in the elevations that all the signage would take place on but building elevation. However, if this is approved, are you been able to change that signage and put like a big sign along the road to the regulations themselves? Kind of already limit you to the building. >> So and you have a I mentioned that Walmart will forgo and the signage on the other 3 straight. Okay. >> But like the street that it's facing, you could in theory, just like a big billboard or is it like just a? >> You You can put up a sign on any street frontage which meets the 100 square foot maximum size. >> Yes. And so then with this variance, then would be the maximum size of the sign that you can put on the front street. If the board allowed. Accumulation of all for signs to be put on the front. But on a can do. And that situation there before 100 square feet. Signs all over 200 feet. They would all be allowed to have 100 square foot, something by code. So I guess you know, what I'm wondering is like is there any way to do like a conditional approval that like in so long as it's located, more or less like where it is in in the drawing. So we review. >> Like on the building is itself for. >> Are you concerned that they're not going to do the signage that's been presented here or like in the future? >> Like if they want to be one day and then they just how this variance on that >> So the variance will allow them to do what they're proposing to do. And then if they want to change anything again that have come back to the board like they did in 2012, another coming back to, you know, OK, if another variant. I'm sort of confused in your. What is is there a change? and this sign that is the. >> I guess that the road sign the Anderson, they're only be changing the color. So there are no size changes, not but that you're saying. I thought I heard you say you work for going. Other some that wall signs. Other wall signs on donations which surround those for streets, all that East and the South. I okay, not this. Not But this is not remains remain sense. Not changing. Corrects, corrects the okay. Thank you. question now is some when when was the so there is a variance already in play, correct? When was that 2012? I'm sorry. 2012, 12. Thank you. And that's why could be pretty frank and honest in the and is it in harmony with the neighborhood? This new sign, which is only 7 square feet larger than the original signs. It's easy to say historically that they will not be an impact to the neighborhood because a minimal increase. So it's easy to say when for Wal-Mart because in every case will mark out their permits when signed coach who were much more liberal. All of them have been time throughout Florida, making it difficult for them to replace the same size sign with their logo and trademark. So that's why I have been to so many board meetings. Tried it. Replace the same size, signed that Walmart has had traditionally. That the sign that is currently there now is the sign. Is the size of the earlier grant, a variance. So that's out the 100 and 90 now. Plus the you're also at old market site many markets. now it's the Sarasota market. Those 3 signs make it the 197 Walmart, the Spark and the Sarasota market. I don't have any questions. Thank you so much. I referee. She ate the way he responded to the questionnaire for questions. It's very easy to read and I appreciate that. But then many of these it's important for you to know that all Florida jurisdictions have the same 5 questions. The very same gets by statute. But the state imposes upon just meant. So I've done many of them. I served in a planning. department for 40 wrote several sign Coats myself and they work for the city of Tampa, administered other signs for 10 years. So and pretty well What what good thing science can do and how individual communities want to protect their own identities by limiting. Directing the type or size ago. And I appreciate the directions that these communities give your the sign guy. We >> Give us a sign >> to date we have bottles, but it's anyone signed up no, no, any public speakers either OK? I guess. Weekend turn this part and that will have our and to discuss the issue. You close the public here. Okay. Clothing to close the public hearing at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Any discussion. Sun's rays. Yes. Ending is super important. Yeah. >> And also it's a family from the street and I like the the image of the neighborhood and the size of the earth. The store has increased since the original up. Which is where they're going to place pick up again. And it's again. That's about 300 feet from the road side. South side of that size is about what need in order to be able identify quickly what you have to do 41 because people so. >> I agree. And I also think that the pickup, which is the only area potentially really Pretty self explanatory and mean it really is directional. And they clearly from the road says if you want to just pick up going with I think we're in violent agreement. if anything, I'm thing I'm good. Thank you. All right. The can get a motion place. >> I move to approve a variance decision number. 26 V a R o 5. >> I will. Second that motion all in favor. all right. Ms and one I Miss Dennis. I mister Yes, this does. But yes, Mister Cherry. Yes. Motion passes 5, 0, Okay. we then could. The next item. 26 and that's 0, back to. >> So this is 26 V a R o 6. The petitioner Colin Pember on behalf of on the Anna not star last name Jorgen Road property owners seeking a 3.2 foot variance to exceed 30 inch maximum height of the structure above the cap of the seawall and a waterfront setback for total height of 5.7 feet. The approximately property located at 17, 18 Bay Street is in the residential multiple family Three-one district. There's an existing single-family home on the property which has an existing seawall with an elevation of approximately 1.9 feet in Abd 88. It was constructed in 1952. In which separates the property from Hudson by you pursuant to Zoning Code Section Wendy, the height of structures and waterfront setback shall be limited to no more than 30 inches above average. Finish. Great or 30 inches above the cap. seawall, whichever is less the average finish. Great for the property is currently 6.6 feet. Any bd? Well, the cap of the seawalls currently 1.9 feet and a TD therefore structures. The waterfront setback on the subject. Property are limited to a maximum height of 4.4 feet. And did. We're 30 inches above the cap of the existing seawall. The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a spot 12 inches above the height of the existing pool deck at 6.6 feet and because the existing full the elevation is higher than the maximum allowed for structures in the waterfront. Setback. The applicant is requesting a total variance of 3.2 feet above the maximum, 30 inch height. The specific variants being sought is generally outlined above is a variance from zoning could section one D to exceed the 30 inch maximum height for structures located the waterfront setback to construct a spa 5.7 feet above the existing seawall cap for total variance of 3.2 feet. The board's utilize criteria, one through 5 is outlined, Anderson could section for 6 of 6 feet as the basis and making their determination. Thank you. These HDMI cord tonight. Is there a way to present? I think so. or not that know I'll see if I can I have hard copies, but >> we can present. That would be great. earthly idea. >> I mean, if you have them or cookies their that, make easier enjoy it. No, that's okay. Don't haha. >> All right. If you could please state your name and whether you that you are well morning, Colin Cumberland use attorney with the law firm by Kurt Maryland and sworn. >> The address is 2, 0, 3, 3 Main Street suite, a 600. Get this set up. Everybody can see. Yes. Good Board. My name is Khan Cumber here on behalf of the owner applicant on Road. His owner of 17, 18 Bay Street. And this is variance. Request 2026. the AR 0, 6, Those location of the property. Was constructed in 1997. Hudson byes to the south into the West and Bay Street just to the North. So that can is requesting a variance for the height of the structure and waterfront setback. I'm the coach says that the maximum height, the structures and waterfront setback shall be limited. Not more than 30 inches above the average finish green. We're 30 inches above the cap. The seawall, whichever is less. The seawall. Was constructed in 1952. and it's noticeably lower than the surrounding sea walls. The pool deck existing pool deck is at 6.6 feet. Now the which is kind of standard way of measuring vertical distance. So the pool deck is at 6.6 D 88. Which is 4.7 feet above the existing seawall cap, is an elevation of 1.9 feet. Now the ad. Which is well below the city's maximum permitted high of 7.2, 7 feet. Now the So the spa that we're proposing will literally only protrude from the existing deck by 12 inches behind the spas of mangroves very and rose that are up to 3 0.3 feet above the spot. So creating shield. You all are familiar with here. Compliance requirements go through these quickly. So the from these regulations should be granted. applicant is demonstrate compliance with the required standard for review. Pursuant to Section 4, 6 of 6 of the code. First criteria, special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land structure buildings involved in which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings and the same zoning district. said this property is constrained by a seawall that was constructed in 1952. seawalls and donation of 1.9 feet and have the and the existing DEC at 6.6 feet was constructed after the sea law. So really any accessory designed to function with the pool must be constructed relative to the pool deck to exist and you know, rather 2 allegations seawall. So the unusual elevation of the seawall is directly related to the 1952 construction of the seawall where there were very few regulations and affected that time. Compared to modern seawall elevations, the seawall and the pool that create a height relationship that is really not typical of many other waterfront properties and city. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the the seawall at a 1.9 feet. None of the stab listen. 52, before the current regulatory standards and well below the city's maximum seawall high. Most modern seawalls today 5 feet D. And that was actually because a certain code regulations. So one point the 5 feet modern standard really kind of underscores the fact how far below this seawall the existing seawall is. Behind them on a sea So we're really just seeking to make reasonable improvement. Within the constraints that are imposed by the pool deck and the seawall. And the need for this variance arises separate from from the applicant. You move to the property and 2 a 2025 and was built in 1952. Number 3, literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would cause unnecessary and undue hardship. Strict application of a of the code would deprive that kind of rights that are commonly enjoyed enjoyed by other waterfront properties. And would impose unnecessary and undue hardship customary accessories to to residential pools and, you know, due to the unusually low seawall elevation. Relative to the pool deck. The strict application. What effectively prevent the applicant from building a a safe and functional spot spas only 12 inches above the the pool deck and it's designed to meet modern designs and an operational standards. So if it, you know, without a variance and able to to build a spot. You know. Similar to customary spas in the neighborhood that would that would be unnecessary and undue hardship. Really directly attributable to the unique characteristics of the property. The rants of granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable land building structure. We we designed this only 12 inches above the existing pool deck. We're really not seeking broader leave designed ensure that, you know, standard engineering practices are followed. our request is is narrowly tailored. And finally, the granting of the variants will be consistent with the general intent and purpose of the regulations. And will not be injuries to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. I believe the intent and the purpose of of this section of the code is really you know, preserve views from across the bayou to preserve views. So when votes are driving by in the by, you know, they're not looking structure higher than 30 inches. But in this case, you know, it's a small scale accessory feature and we have and groups that are in existence really at screen. I want to point this This is interesting. There's amendment and 2025 to Section one D. Pre The code red at the height of structures and waterfront setback shall be limited to no more than 30 inches above the average average natural gree or 30 inches above the cap and the seawall. The code was amended last year and the natural natural great was changed to finish 3. But whichever is less was unchanged. I I feel that. The intent was really to address situations like where? Most lots are built now they've been brought up that that's been brought up to build a house on it. Now they're many lots are at natural, great anymore. They're all it's been great. So if you you know, you think about Every house, if if the language whichever is less that language remains, then we're looking at almost every house is going up a variance for for spa. So. I just wanted to point that out. That's not really what we're talking about. But I think it's it's something that that staff is has noticed and realized here's a site plan. This is, you version of the site plan on getting the one that's a little closer. But I want to share this with you because this was in your packet. This then image of the site plan and all these elevations are now donations. So as you can see, Finnish grade a 6.6 feet. The sea was at 1.9 and then we have that are 9.4 to 10.9 feet Ft. This aerial. Puts it into you know, showing the yellow line with the seawall at 1.19 D the code maximum relative to the sea. Wall is 4.4 feet existing pool deck. Is 4.7 feet above the sea wall. The spas 12 inch greater. Then sea wall and then the mangroves, you know, they're up to 3 feet above the proposed spot. And the cross section put in perspective in a different way to show really, you know. We're we're stuck and between see you on an existing deck. But we're we're also shielded by these mangroves that are going to continue to protect the ocean. This is you may have seen this hand when, you know, went out here and look at this and and saw that firsthand. So this doesn't do it justice. But it it does show, you know, really that it's it's really them in a mess. Accessory structure and you have the mangroves that that will not be removed and they're going shield it from anyone across the by you and anyone driving by on leave that up there. Yeah. I think that's the last pages. I just have put this back up so tight. >> We're just requesting a and we believe that meta says Pfizer code we're seeking to make reasonable improvement within the constraints that that are imposed. The variances requests to approve variance for a proposed bought exceed 30 inch maximum height for structures located in the waterfront setback and to construct a spa 12 inches above the existing pool. That for a total parents of 3.2 feet. I'm here to answer any questions. I wanted to ask you because >> This is something that I heard just now which I didn't consider before we get a little closer, my my Pollack, thank you >> did I hear correctly just now? That the pool deck is? Was required adjustment previously. I mean, to have it that high. >> I don't know. It was I presume done. It seems the house which is back in 1997. So I'm not sure what the code was at the time is that when the house in the pool were built? >> Yes, 1997 both at the same time. And at that time, we don't know whether there was an adjustment to right. So there wasn't he? You know, I mean, we we received the you know, play for building permits. Staff reviews, its zoning. >> You know, all the department's review it and they issued a building permit. So, you know, we can only assume that. They said this Means Co, you to code. >> I had a similar question because it seems like the pool it's already too high. Just your right well based on current yet. So it's not necessarily the I mean, really based on. The elevation of French. Great of the you know, can you have to bring that up based on FEMA So I think they almost just took advantage of had set this elevation. We're going pool. On same elevation of the past. I I don't know. they received a building permit but it's fairly high relative to the old. See you. Thank you. It's a pretty old sea wall. >> Here some years, 74 players. But the thing is, you know, it is very see will. And and by this time, most people in. >> Have a house on the water, the they've improved their seat, especially considering the modern standards of 5 feet and with the code allows a 7.2, 7 we've looked into what can be done with the seawall. But when we come back to them and you know, if we if we. Reasons were allowed to do or we replace a sea wall. Then we're risking impacting stay protected man. So there's that. That balance. And then, you know, we we. We damage the demand grows and then that kind of defeats the the real intent of the code is to produce protective. You should from people on the other side of that by you and both by said, you know, I mean, we really are in this. This is tight spot here. >> I don't want jump ahead of anyone if anyone has any other questions. Well, I guess, like the clarification. I was just going to ask is so really what's acting as your seawall is the mangroves in the situation. Like if water comes in some mangroves that's holding the first in place because the seawall so much lower than all the field, the in the house. I think that the man she was structurally sound, I don't think anything's going. She was going in. The mangroves, do You know, they're like, see you and do they hold the? >> The scent together on on the House side, seawall. I'm not an engineer with a you know, if those mangroves are. Those members weren't there, that settlement would be holding being held there. And then the pressure of the fill on the pad push against that seawall on the seawall we go towards Walker. >> Concurrently felt they mangroves are acting as the anchor of which is probably why it's been there. 76 years, Wright told James Holding I think one hand washing the other right there. no, I applaud the idea of doing whatever is necessary to address the preservation of the natural. Protection for the shoreline. ? It's really not something you know, you see very often were. >> The mangroves are preserved around, you know, around the property in and I don't know if anyone's been into the bayou on a boat you know, this houses literally you come into this by that houses because it's on the corner. I mean, it's looking right at you and it's kind of nice seeing, you know, kind. was just the roof and then you're looking at nice habitat. So it is something desire to leave in place. >> So that's a question we're for Allison, from my understanding of the seawall regulations because there are properties that don't have seawalls and they have natural vegetation holding things in place is this property that required to have to see know. Really highly encouraged. >> I think it. >> I think if there was sea wall because the elevation of it would just it would any runoff. Any water with just a routine go straight into bayou properties. You see where there isn't a sea wall. elevation is more of a natural grading that works up to the pan, right? I mean, this is just weren't that that see was on the of the past. It's it's not a gradual natural green that works up to the Most of those are what would be lots that the house is set back further from the water. So you have that ability to create a up to that. >> Okay. So it's not like a natural. It is like bumped up. So you will see a Yeah. Okay, It really is. I mean, it's you get the seawall and then you have like ending. If you look at this, you know, don't. You'll see crash. Right? It's even though it's grassy there. >> It's it's grassy. But, you know, I mean, it just goes to show that, you know, drops. It really drops >> It drops what, 5.60? Yeah. If you would mind that put elevation, the vertical a nation yeah, that's the one bill. Because from 7.6 to and but 20 feet 6 feet in. And the one of the corners, it's only 11 feet from the sea wall. >> And I'm sorry on your SITE Exhibit B, there's carros to the distances between the pool pad and the of those 11 feet, right? Yeah, they'll probably be your most restrictive corner. >> That is cars clothes to sue. So I want to remark over the fact that the main are nice and kind. >> They're up about. So in reality, anyone who's in the pool or in the spawn? Well, not be seen from the waters of the neighbors across the street other than from the second floor Not making sense. I'd like to understand. remarked on number 4, we variants client. I'd like to understand because this is 12 inches high. I know it's small. I realize that. But the implication is that the pool won't work otherwise for the spot will work otherwise. And I'd like to understand. How is it that all those other houses that have a pool and spa at the same level? How is it that they work? So it's almost a structural issue. We have our design issue. It's it's more of a structural issue because of >> Diggs. The right uses. This is your ground. Your pad. >> And then >> if you if you dropped a spot, understand things are some other houses, this is but one of the main reasons is the functionality. If you drop this spot. You had. You haven't had that so close to the slow. That right in this area. You're going to have to take more soil and it's going to compromise. >> The actual had below the pool that. >> this and getting this But it's it is something that, you know, I mean, looked at and and it's not we're not here to say we just want a spa that. It's about the pool that by 12 inches. You sure you're not. >> What we are because we're asking for a variance for that reason. But the reason we are 12 feet, 12 inches above is because of structural reasons. >> So that's the structural reason is because the proximity to the water right, and this and that and the one has signed relative to that Lucy will OK, that makes sense. Does designers would ever agree? Looking to the city? I'm not an engineer. Are you an engineer? She's not an okay. that we don't have an engineer. And engineer was not a structural engineer. okay. So but the. >> What you're saying it is literally structural and it is the mass. The wait. That would be an issue. >> not necessarily the way it it's the weight. That you end up dry when you display off that we on to. To the pad that that's lower. So it's this placement. >> So you know, thaw is more related our criteria. Number 3, so does this deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties because it seems other properties at this time would be designing to the code. So. Isn't that also? You know, something that the homeowner can do is just pray, seawall and just bring it all to code. >> Yeah, we can raise the seawall and have to remove mangroves and spend $100,000. And you see will other properties have more of a setback. From the water. So they do have some times that ability to have a little Lower a flush spa. We are unique with this corner lot, which kind of forces us between is required setbacks. But the city has were forced into this corner, which is closer to the water. So we we are are you you can is a very unique And if you look aerials up and down this area, you'll notice that many of many of the pools are either brought back like next next story. You can see the pools brought back to the side of the House. Brought back to the side of the House right we just we have a unique a very unique distance. To the water to see you all variables, too. >> That triggered me say, wait minute, could you move to the east side of the pool? And then you no longer have the soil issue. Because you're further from the sea wall. I don't know it's. >> That we can do that. And if we move to the side and you're closer to the neighbor, we a letter from the neighbors supporting us. I I'm not sure whether he would. One retract that letter We asked we can move it closer to his house. >> is. It is. >> More narrow on that side. And yes, this with that, VA to variance issue. >> they have, the setback would probably compromised it. That's what I'm asking. It's not that big. >> Yeah. I think the side setback would probably be 5 feet. Yeah, for an accessory struck but it still you're going to have the same problem. 12 inches. Because now your own side slow you know, this the past rather slow going down towards the >> seawall, your own, you know, the signs. >> I did not notice that the there was a slow their on that site on the East side. Yeah. You know, what is the waterfront setback is a 25 or 30, 30, 30 feet. >> Okay. So even the houses in the waterfront setback. >> Houses but the excess or E. >> I'm just looking at the provide. >> From the deck from the law. >> It's the original pool had not been so high. Would you still need a variance? If that Syria now? Yeah. In my mind it's the pool that's causing the problem. It probably right. The height of the full will. >> Wright says Seawall because on the sea walls or 5 feet. But we're also forced to the Sure to build that. That deck. You know. >> Yeah, I think it's a problem with both. It's a problem with where the pool was built and it's a problem with the seawall. I don't think you would have been able to build the pool low enough, right in comparison to the sea wall anyway, right? Yeah. And I did find the permit actually for the pool. Approved in August of 1996. At the same time as the was legally permitted. I'm trying to see if I can pull up any images from the permit, but our attention doesn't. Because keep things out. but it was legally permitted, said it was permitted. So that level you can assume that the level of the pool is legal. Was or was it when it was built ease with the grandfather >> do were questions question. all right. So I just like. >> The number 5 is another one that kind of come to mind that but it could be injurious to the neighborhood. A lot of pressure is being put on this main grove and that is a living species. And as much as I also him in for they're not guaranteed to live forever. So you have a situation where you could have in the case of, you know, water levels rising with such a low sea wall. You could have a lot of pressure being exerted on the foundation of a pool which might be tied to the foundation of the House, which has tons of Phil next to it. And all of that potentially moving versus it being safely sicker and that this seawall that's higher, which is what you would have to do if you're going about it with chase regulations without a variance. So what you know, do you have any comments as to how that would not potentially be injurious to the public. To put all that pressure and growth and just keep adding structure above on a very steep next to the water >> I don't think this is going have much you're taking >> what you're you're removing. You're removing soil. You're adding water. Show and mean it. concerns more weight put more weight on the seawall. don't think that's >> you're bringing the structure further towards the water? No, because the is further towards the water than the pool laws. This spot is not. Look, if you aside, if you even look, look on >> this is this is not. >> I think we're this picture. so you're you're what's this? The So that I think what you're you're both trying to say the same thing. I think so. It's it's closer than the pool itself, but it's raining and existing deck. >> It's structure. Yeah, it's There is an existing structure that is closer to thank. You know why I see what I understand. That can be like Sansa papers, though, you know, to really. >> Requiring like foundation walls and concrete walls below it. That that do rely a certain amount of Phil staying in place for them to be supported on the other side. Like you said, you have a lot of water and one side of the wall and then you have. Soil on the other side for Phil, which bounces out those pressures. And so if that moves, you need a different kind of country well, to hold it without all the Phil. On the other side. Well, I think you're >> thinking of a retaining wall. I know in talking about foundation is right. But I mean retaining wall with hold the soil place. Usually you just do a different structure you know, different rebar. saying that this is of wells, etcetera. Sometimes even, you know, more film inside. So it's just a completely different situation when you have a insight and when you don't. And now you're taking. This condition, bring it closer to the water. And there's nothing really on the other side holding. All that feel in place that is acting structurally for not only just the pool, but really for the House. Your you're relying on the members to do all that and they are think that she was actually in the ground. Don't think the mangroves are what's holding the seawall? Well, I I'll the angle of the soil, their words, 11 feet and it drops. You know, that that drop. It's not like you said a natural towards the water is. So that's held in place may grow fruits. And structural engine. Yeah, You know, what was the question that you have that? Is there any anything that they're doing to help prevent it from being injurious to the public? Because just as that shown, it seems like you the reason that the legislation says that the code says that is for the public safety and welfare. And so what they're proposing is to not do what the code says. And I think that that could be injurious to the public mean we it's not like we're going out here and again that, you know, the homeowners digging this hole and >> pouring cement we have experts who designed. they designed it for a specific reason. I'm not the expert, but I mean, we have to show when we going to get our building permanent, we have to show that this isn't going to clocks the soil. It's not going to collapse along. And there's. We have to show that we have to show proof we have to should structural engineering. We have to show architecture. It's not. Good through this board. And tomorrow we're building. There's a lot more work. Just like You know, you know, you just start building house. You have to show that structurally sound and its architect, you know, from electrical, you're not going put your house on fire. The plumbing is not going to leave. All of that has to do with health safety and for help. And that's that's why the county or the city reviews just like they would engineers will review the permanent. >> Haha. >> So they can look for those that I'm not an expert on. Let me be in a good lawyer for a minute. Talking about what's happening next. >> Sub service of of the spa is not Coy relevant. argument that all relevant to the variance request because of answer questions and put the spot there. The variance request is to put a 12 inches higher than it's supposed to be. We're talking about. I understood your question. No, I'm just saying it's a lot more than 12 inches higher than it's supposed to be. He's just saying 12 inches compared to pull. >> But the pool is a lot higher than it's supposed to be. That in 1970. >> Not that is in Gulf parlance playing it as it lays. Those are the conditions that you have that you have to assume. >> Our lawful as you sit here today. So you're really talking about subsurface things. The don't go too. The 12 inches. We're talking about 2, 3, 4, feet, but concern is However, it is not my view relevant to the Barents criteria here and Miss Christie, the attorney are correct. This is going to injured here read you times in terms of In terms of the impact it's going to have for not of Both sides. >> All sides. So take a quick question when we approve something. engineers look at all of that still, or is it just? >> Yes. So if you approve this, then it will be reflected in their building permit that they would then submit it will show the spa being at the location that they're proposing it that and so then that would be reviewed by engineering. Okay. >> To have any more questions for the petitioner are doing to our we just thing now? Well, we're we're still in the question we haven't discussed again. Okay. I think that's pretty good for my We have no further questions. >> Welcome Close this portion. >> My issue was that it was higher. Then we'll that. But they make a good So no one would see it at this time. And the pool is already higher. That's Army's approved set to write Agree to agree a. >> And from a design standpoint, you come out Most paused tend to have to drain all. No, no, no, Lots of the new stuff is the same exact level. Same exact level. >> And they maintain order. >> Well, you have a between us. You have get out to get win on this ground. Yeah. So in that case, it's no different. It's just simply. But I can appreciate the fact I actually think the water is heavier than soil. I'm not an engineer. Some not going argue that >> for me, this one, I can actually answer all of the criteria and didn't have any questions other than that. The pull is already there. And it was it like when you pull that was just recently put in. So. I just I talk in time. It is a bad idea you know, me. >> But I just feel like it's a really bad idea. But, you know, everyone's entitled to their opinions. Well, we have focus on our criteria to get only answer those based on what we have because I understand what you're saying based on my training and information has been I feel like it could potentially be injurious to the welfare of the community in. So I do not strongly feel like this is and Anderson will be reviewed. Understand this. People who very well versed in it, but I feel they are enjoying the rights of other properties have which are, you know, the right to. Of spas so long as it's within the criteria of, you know, the height offset from the sea wall in its very well within their means, most likely to raise the seawall. If it's not then maybe they don't need to be considering adding a spot. You know, I think it's about having your priorities in order. I think with what I'm seeing on the site plan. I think there's a lot more emphasis that needs to be put on the height of the seawall, then adding more concrete more week. higher than it should be. Close to the water. And that's, you know, that's just how I'm reading these. And that's my thoughts on it. But again, you know, have to agree. maybe are turning can help us like understand with I think your question number 5, right? a question. thought 3, >> 5, 3, Okay. Could you help us understand how we answer those questions? Because only specific to the height of the stop. Like you said with this observance rights. >> So the height of the spa has applied to criteria 3, >> Yes. I'd start first with justification. ? Which appears to be has to tread teary of 3 that sponsor customer excess or use or proved that they were for properties. Unique elevation relative to the pool because seawall elevation. And that the 30 inch limitation would effectively prevent the from construction, a functional spot that integrates with existing. That's that's just patient. You are required to accept that at face value. In my services company, substantial evidence in the case. But that doesn't mean you're required to to rely upon. If you feel it does not. That's to 5. I'm curious to the neighborhood. I I don't quite know the answer that one, but not the answer. I would not answer the call was by reference to any. And he could be pressure. Engineering problem created by these subsurface construction of the spot. Some of the cars have the evidence before you say So I don't. Recommend that you rely on that at all. I I hear one member do the same and start wrong. It's just in terms of the Spurs ending. You know, you don't have the evidence. >> So if I may interrupt you since we don't have the evidence, does that mean that should we delay and get a structural engineer to look at this? Somebody from the city so that we do have the evidence. >> I don't I don't recommend that all your applicant here as proper has due process there was a concern about. And it should have been raised much, much earlier than today. >> The other thing is that injurious in terms of that in terms of as a variance, co >> Really does The other thing, other reason here is because various state is not asking whether the spa can be placed there. That's not at all. The question should be asked to and typically codes speaking to various criteria are talking about. What kind of harm does it cause to the to the zoning code? They should because variances can because they can cause harm to zoning codes by by being issued without appropriate evidence, for example, which essentially can result in the changing of zoning codes without a legislative process of being extra set to change zoning code that makes sense. So even sure that injurious to the to the community means somebody might get hurt by the thing, falling over into the water on to a vote or injuring men grows. So I. Again, I don't think continues to be appropriate for that reason that all okay. Thank you for that. And sure. >> And understand where you're coming from because a realtors, a lot of times Real says of ice. I know things personally that. Can only look at the criteria and we have to answer and like not. Because I had to separate my personal thoughts and opinions. You know, I see all that doing all the time. Our bill I understand you're saying I don't disagree it's just for this purpose. but as Christiane >> injury right here. Sometimes a question ask is why does this why is this code written the way it is what seeking to protect? Yes, right. And then you can analyze. Does the 12 inches standing derogation to that purpose? Does it? Is it? Is it really going to cause a great deal of harm to to that overarching? Justification for having the COVID businesses. The purpose for height waterfront setback says primarily views and maintaining corridors. >> So thank God for those mengers. >> Used to sit for views. Well, there's also sometimes you have to get like, which is it? The right Pierre and certificates is If water is moving through site, correct? Like a. >> That's not usually something that I review with, like zoning and development applications. But I do think that, you know, you're talking about that something separate break like building thing in the area where water by it. It's like different structural criteria. But yet again, that's technical. And that would be yeah. And more for like docks and things not in the waterfront. Setback in the water itself. Great and so what its actual variance that is asking for because it's not just 12 inches cracked. No, 3.2 feet because it's being measured from the Sea. Walk up. Okay. So that's why I was confused him. >> Is in 12 inches 30, if they're asking, is that 3 point something? I was not. I was being relative to the pool. Yeah. Okay. Because the school is already that that's why in my mind the pool is the problem. >> It's already it could not not that it's a problem already there. >> And that to be is the. >> Hardship. I guess that the pool was already built kind of too high. 2 compared to what it is right now. What the rules would be. Is that right? Right? Yeah. to it. And are slight. >> What you said the pool was >> That's what we have to assume. I did find a approved building permit. I couldn't view it, but I found the permit. >> And you also said that, but looking at the site plan or would never do that. Putting this thing called the Thank you. Just fine. >> Some routes have the same problem. It's a problem. And why would it be the same problem? Height? waterfront setbacks, 30 feet. So it it kind of goes this fall with that whole area of actors in the waterfront setback anyway. Okay. So there. So if they put it here, is that an issue still? And so within 30's distance, okay. So maybe right outside of that. This is well, that's looks to me like write it. >> I don't think we should redesign it for them. not trying to redesign. I'm trying to say I there are alternatives. >> She's saying it's possible to build it out of the waterfront. Setback. So than others. So you wouldn't need a variance and you can still have a spot. Brett? >> I don't speak for the petitioner shoe. Are we able to reopen? Because and I mean, more questions a case and I Kushner, right, right? Questions. You need to reopen it right? So I'm saying I'm looking at this too many times. The is driving what somebody is asked, not they want to change the code basically for themselves because they designed it that way. >> Not because it's good. And then making sense. It does look pretty good. I would that 19. >> 52 in the retaining wall was built. They would have raised the retaining wall at the same time they built the House. Would this be a problem today? The answer is now. So it's grandfathered, correct. That's what you're just saying you're looking at a finite subset. dismissing. And I'm just saying just trying to take a look at the broader picture. The to overall. significance of the high is due primarily. To the height of the sea wall, which is not a standard high for these. So coach of the year, I don't have an issue with the Sea for the full >> I'm saying is it truly? The location that's driving the issue of the 12 engines. That part of it is who cares? You're going to see in any See it. But do we dismiss it out the fact that? From now on the have to be that all they can't get any That's that's the only thing. Ms. >> I think we asked the petitioner if we could move it there and he said, no, we he would still need a he never looked at. >> I will also say I didn't see where you were pointing on the site plan, but if you remember from our site visit on the side, closest neighbor, it's really tight walking through there as it is. I don't know that you would have room for a spa. >> So it's 13.4. And that's from the pool deck. >> And I'm saying, hey, on the other ones, you built the spot right into the pool deck. So you can do that here, too. I mean, I. I don't know. Okay. So >> I think I think you really want to be careful here about the hypothetical. things that are okay. before do a 3 to 12 inches or not. Because I think I think, you know, and what question on the great are you looking? I see, I understand your point personally. I just try to figure out what part of the criteria you're looking No number 4, okay. I'm saying number 4, is this. The minimum variance required to make reasonable use of the land? >> And I'm saying, wait a minute. Is this minimal? >> The legal concern that I that that I have is that you be relying on the? Probably always present metaphysical possibility that something else is the right, rather than rush. That's not what I'm being asked to do. >> I'm being as evidence that Sweden was what you're missing here. >> Right. That's what I So I don't have the evidence, which is why we whiny continuance. What I'm going back to guys. Is this. The minimum required? Now, part of me says, why do I care? The main grows are hiding it There's something to be said for that. But I don't want to just dismiss it without discussing that. We have a criteria that says is this the minimum? >> Too many times things get approved when they're not minimal. >> Take a brief which I'm sorry. I something It's been speaking to continuances your rules of procedure, provide that a party or the city can request a continuance. Neither has done that here. The board on its own may continue the hearing on its own initiative. Upon finding any testimony, documentary evidence or other research print or other evidence presented justifies allowing time for one additional research or to review for the benefit of the board. So too, what that excludes marshaling and presentation of additional evidence. >> Now, wait a minute, didn't we do that before? A continuance for what we for it for a redesign because was because China clause. after asking applicants said that they could make change. So with the consent of the applicant was continued. Yes, there don't have that here. >> Yeah, I don't know that I would recommend that by applicant has. This is what they want to do. This is what they're asking for, approve or deny it. Okay. So are we ready for a motion? >> All right. You're ready to close debate. >> Yes. Yes, 6. We would someone please make motion. I move to approve issue number. 26 BR 0, 6, >> Roll call, please. Mishandling now, MS Tennis Mister Yes, Mister Cherry. Yes. Motion passes 3 to Thank you all. Thank I was only this is just open. that's been closed to close it. >> I was on the planning the county Planning Commission for 9 years and our meeting started at 5. Yeah. We did have would love. I would have loved to have afternoon at 5. That's our commission to be yeah. At 5 I heard it. I didn't hear little ones. Yeah. >> Alright, presentation topics for board members. And the thing. >> I would I would just say if I may, this is my last meeting. >> We I don't mean to cut you off. But we that was next does anybody have anything? President of topics by city administration? I was going to knowledge of this is Max last meeting and thank him for years of service. We do have this. it. Thank you. The city your hard work and dedication to poor. >> Thank you very Miss you year. You want us >> take a year off? Yeah. come after year. Well, it's it's been a great, a great ride. A lot of a lot of experience. A lot >> things I've gone through. I think it least for. >> General haha. Several can safely Aires. is and it's a big change board members over timeline also and while most of our decisions and the cases prevented or presented to this event. Pretty mundane overall, we've had some very contested ones that times one time with It was so contested, even have a police presence One time. Because he was get out control and no fist to cuffs Thing went smoothly. But it's been a very interesting and a great experience. Well, we appreciate that very from council you and everybody's been great to work with. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate you. Come back one all right. That was all I had. >> On the docket for next month. >> We do have one on the list for next month. As of now. And it's another one of our favorites. House being such a? >> I think a lot of that best addressed fine. raised in height, not destroyed, correct. >> Our a I S E We can you want. Her?