Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

6 o'clock.

So we can turn off. You're so kind.

All right, so we're go ahead and calling the meeting to order at 6 o'clock. Madam Clerk, I'd like to motion. I understand our chair was unable to make it today, so I'd like to motion to excuse.

Okay.

Does anybody like to second that?

I'll second.

Roll call.

Motion to excuse Ryan Chair from the meeting. Yes. Chair Gonzalez? Yes. Board Member Murphy?

Yes.

Board Member Turvides? Yes. Motion passes. Roll call. Board Member Turbides.

Yes.

Board Member Murphy. Yes. Vice Chair Gonzalez. Yes.

You have a quorum. We stand for Pledge Allegiance. Today has special significance given that we're 250 years old in a couple of days. So Mr. Turbides, if you would lead us. Okay, so approval of minutes. I would like the motion to approve minutes.

I'll make the motion to approve minutes.

I'll second it.

Do you want me to roll? Okay. Board Member Murphy? Yes. Vice Chair Gonzalez? Yes. Board Member Turbides? Yes. Motion carries.

Perfect. So it looks like we only have one item on the agenda today. And are we going to give the applicant a couple of minutes to...

if i can let me read the resolution into the record absolutely item 3a on the agenda a resolution of the mayor and commission of north bay village florida approving approval conditions are denying a variance application by jonathan offerman to permit a carport at the property located at 1441 south treasure drive folio number two three three two oh nine zero zero nine zero six one zero with a front setback of 19 feet where 20 feet is required and with a side interior setback of three feet One inch where 7 1⁄2 feet is required, providing for conditions, providing for violations, and providing for an effective date.

Okay.

Johnny?

It was in the staff report.

Is the applicant here?

Not yet.

Not yet? think he he advised one of us uh village staffers that he was running two minutes behind so if we can give him a couple of minutes um and in the meantime um mr pinder do we have any items for the august planning and zoning board meeting

Not at the moment.

Not at the moment. Do we anticipate having any?

I'm not seeing any right now, so I'm anticipating.

Just so that we can go ahead and cancel it.

Gotcha.

So we're going to cancel officially now?

If there is no application, if there's circumstances for the board to recess for summer, you guys obviously...

Well, that would be if there's nothing, then, yeah, if there's nothing. Yeah. No. Okay.

And the ordinances we're working on aren't going to be ready for that meeting. Correct.

Okay. So do we need to make a motion to write for?

No, there's no submissions. There will be still counsel.

I just figured we would dispense and be able to let, you know, from now.

Okay.

So people can make plans.

Taking good, efficient use of time. I try. I try. It must be an attorney.

Something like that.

That's great.

I play one on Mondays and Wednesdays. Okay, so. And then when the applicant gets here, I guess we can, Madam Clerk, if we can swear in any witnesses and the board, if you can let me know of any ex parte disclosures that you have, if you've spoken with the applicant or anyone else regarding this application, we can do that when they arrive. But if there are none, you can all state that there have been no There is, there is, it's in the backup. And I'm sure that Mr. Pender's presentation addresses it.

Correct. It's a survey drawing really. And there are pictures showing it on the cardboard. I can, I can do that. No problem.

I already looked at it on Maps. Google Maps. Yep. No, Apple Maps. Yeah. I use both, but if you have an iPhone, the Apple Maps, yeah.

You can always do this. And then get the street view.

Yeah. There's the house there.

Okay. If board members are ready, I'll start my presentation. Right. Good evening, members of the Planning and Zoning Board. This application before you this evening is to request a variance for a carport that is already existing on the property. And to clarify, it has been installed first without the benefit of obtaining the required permits. think relatively recently, as far as the exact timeline, I'm not 100% aware of it, but there is an active code case.

We have the director of code compliance here, and after he makes his presentation, he can come up and give you a rundown of what the sequence of events have been operationally.

Mr. Vice Chair, I think just in the interest of of not having the applicant here. I think we should hold off on the presentation, especially if there's gonna be any questions.

I would want the applicant to have the benefit of hearing your presentation.

Mr. Rodriguez, I know you're, there you are. Did the applicant say how far out he is?

Is that him trying to get into the store?

Oh boy.

Okay. Okay.

Okay. So we'll give him, we'll give him a few minutes. Let's take a few minute recess. And Mr. Chair, do you want to set a time or give him until 615 or something? 607?

Okay.

Hold on.

Is he here?

It seems that way. Hello, welcome.

Sorry I'm late. It's OK. We understand that. We understand that.

Go ahead and take a seat. The hearing has already begun. We were just about to take a recess to allow you a few minutes to arrive. So just so that you understand, Mr. Offerman, item 3A is your application. The title of the item has been read into the record by our clerk. If you will be testifying, we will ask our village clerk to swear you in. and once you are sworn in our village planner will be making his recommendation on your application or his presentation rather with his recommendation on the application you'll have an opportunity to make your presentation the board members will have an opportunity to ask questions if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak on the item we'll take hearing from them if there's any cross examination that needs to be done will do that as well. And then the board will deliberate make a decision. And after tonight's hearing, this will go to the village commission presumably at the next village commission meeting on July 28, this month.

And the village commission will be the ones to make the final decision.

So I do also, since we are short on the board, the planning and zoning board is comprised of a five-member board with one alternate, so a full board is five individuals. Obviously, we have a quorum tonight with three of you here in order to make pursuants who are code a majority vote of the board. shall be required on all recommendations made to the commission. So we'll need three of you to be acting unanimously this evening, whichever way you go in order to pass a motion. And I do wanna note that we have a North Bay Village specific provision of our charter that provides in 6.03B that where the planning and zoning board by unanimous vote of its full membership. So we don't have a full membership, but I know that this has come up in other instances. So where the planning and zoning board by unanimous vote of its full membership has presented a negative recommendation to the village commission relating to a request for a variance or special use exception. Tonight we have a variance. It shall require the village commission to act by at least four affirmative votes in order to grant such request for variance or special use exception. So we don't have a full board this evening. So my position is that this provision of the charter would not apply, but I want you all to be aware that it exists. And then I had one more note. The notice for tonight's hearing was sent out, my understanding, as required. However, the agenda that was published has Zoom information for a different Zoom hearing. So I did want the applicant to be aware of that. I don't know if you had anyone who is going to speak on your behalf or otherwise. The way I see it is the village has, just before this meeting started, we posted on the village's website and on the front page as a banner the new Zoom meeting ID so that if somebody wants to join, they can. But because this is a board that recommends a decision to the village commission, ultimately the village commission will have the authority to make the final decision and will have the opportunity to hear from the public and interested parties. I don't see, I am not concerned proceeding with tonight's hearing, but I did want to let the applicant know. And in case you did not feel comfortable moving forward to let us know. The applicant has said he is okay proceeding as is. So Mr. Pinder, if you can bring in your presentation.

Madam Attorney, just so that I'm clear on your comment about the minimum four.

Yes, minimum three. you said four according to code that we that we're aware and that we're cognizant of the fact that we're waving at that provision is that what you're saying not waving the so what the charter says is that the planning and zoning board by unanimous vote of its full membership so we don't have we don't have a full membership tonight correct so where the five board members would vote negatively for something, then it would require a super majority vote of the village commission to approve it. And that's by charter. But my interpretation of this provision is that because we don't have a full membership tonight, that does not apply.

Gotcha. Okay. We may proceed. Thank you.

And if I can acknowledge the board member, Abramson has joined the meeting on Zoom and the property owner, if you could stand and raise your right hand so I can swear you in. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you.

Were you going to ask about ex parte before?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. If the board members have had any ex parte communications on this application, now would be the time to state those on the records. If you've had none, then you can say you've had none.

None.

None.

Mr. Pinder, you may proceed.

Okay, thank you. Good evening once again, Mr. Vice Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Board. Once again, the application before you is a variance request for a carport that has been constructed without the benefit of a permit, so it is existing on the property at the moment. So the applicant is requesting relief from two setbacks. That is the front setback and the interior side setback. So their side property line that's shared with their neighbor. On the front setback, the applicant is requesting a setback of 19 feet instead of 20 feet. So a relief of one foot. And on the side setback, the applicant is requesting a setback of three feet, one inches, which would be a relief of four feet, five inches. for that encroachment on the side setback. Staff will state that for the front setback, it is consistent with the existing home. And so with staff's review, the front setback would be okay and actually approvable. However, with the side setback, the principal structure of the existing home currently complies and exceeds that required seven and a half foot setback. So that the side setback is the real area of concern with this application request. On your screen right now is an aerial of the property. The property is highlighted in yellow and it is on the corner of West Treasure Drive and South Treasure Drive. I can't right now. Sorry about that.

And board members, you do have a screen to your left sort of behind you. I don't know if that makes it any easier to see.

I can exit the slideshow and submit.

Is that the same? Correct.

Okay. And on your screen right now is the survey highlighted in yellow is where the carport is existing along the side property line here. The current setback is that 3.1 feet and the front setback along this side of the property, the west side. at the closest point to the property line the carport is set back at 19 feet again within continuing this existing building line of the existing home scrolling to the right we can see the carport structure and i'll zoom in just a little bit more here so this is the structure under review tonight with the request to reduce the setbacks

Okay.

So moving on to the variance criteria, there are seven criteria that the application must meet in order to receive a recommendation of approval from staff. And I will say that the application complies with just one of the criteria and it partially complies with another one. So I can go through them really quickly for the benefit of the board. The criteria number one, it asks whether there are special circumstances and conditions which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other lands or structures or buildings within the same zoning district. Within this zoning district, this property is sized at 7,140 square feet, which complies with the requirements of the zoning district. The minimum size for a property is 6,000 square feet. It contains approximately 2,000 square foot principal structure that has setbacks right now for the front between 5.6 feet and 19 feet on the front property line. And again, that side setback is just over 8 feet. The curvy linear configuration of the property does pose a bit of a limitation, certain dimensional limitations. However, where the carport is installed and for that side property setback, it is not affecting that. So for that reason, it does not comply with criteria number one. With criteria number two, it states whether there are special circumstances and conditions that were not self-created by any person having an interest in the property. The law configuration and existing principal structure are pre-existing. However, the carport, as I stated earlier, was installed without the benefit of a permit, and it is currently in violation of the setback requirements. So although there are dimensional constraints, as I mentioned earlier, the circumstances result from the decision to construct the carport without a permit, and therefore it does not comply. Criteria number three states whether the strict application of the provisions of the chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. The strict application would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. It would probably It would require the removal of the carport structure, which could cause additional costs onto the applicant. However, that should not be taken into consideration because it was installed without the benefit of receiving the proper approvals. And the property can still be reasonably used as a single family property and provide for the required number of parking spaces. So it does not comply with this criteria. For criteria number four, whether granting the variance request will confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the land development code. All RS2 zoned properties are required to comply with the same setback requirements. The existence of similar carport construction on neighboring properties that may potentially be encroaching into the setback requirements does not grant justification for this particular property. And when granting variances, it is based upon the circumstances specifically related to this property. So for that reason, it does not comply with criteria number four. As criteria number five, the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land structure or building. The variance request seeks approval of a structure that was constructed with non-compliant setbacks. However, there was no evidence submitted to staff that That proves that alternative placements or alternative design options were sought prior to construction. So SAP is unable to determine whether alternative designs would have reduced the setback encroachment or if a setback encroachment would have been necessary. So it does not comply with criteria number five. Criteria number 6 states where the granting of variance will be, excuse me, will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the chapter. And it will be in harmony with the generally with the purpose of the chapter is the same residential use and character will be maintained. The visual impacts onto neighboring properties will be minimal. There is an existing fence on that side property line along with landscaping that screens the carport, and the structure does not create adverse impacts related to light, air, and public safety. However, granting the request deviates from the setback standards established by the ULDC, so for that reason, it partially complies. For the final criteria, criteria number seven, is whether the request is based exclusively upon a desire to reduce the development costs. And for this request, it is not based on that particular criteria. So it complies with that. So the recommendation from staff, although the proposed variance is not anticipated to be injurious onto the neighborhood and the property will continue to maintain a neighborhood, a single family property characteristics, because it does not comply with the majority of the criteria, staff cannot recommend approval of the variance request and staff recommends denial of the variance. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer.

Can you, number six, again, can you repeat why that's partially compliant? Can you read that again? I just want to make sure I caught everything.

Okay, no problem. So it is partially compliant because the existing character is painting, which is in compliance with the criteria. The visual impacts onto the neighboring property are minimal because there's a fence and landscaping, and the structure does not create adverse impacts of light, air, or onto public safety. Now, the reason why it's not fully compliant is because of the structure is not located or complying with the setback requirements of the zoning district. And because of that, it's not fully compliant with the provisions of the land development code.

Can I make a comment? Just a nuance. Isn't a variance by definition a deviation from the numerical values of the code?

That is correct.

So would the fact that, you know, he's requesting a variance just because obviously he doesn't meet with the code. So would that... Would that be considered anybody requesting a variance would not comply with the code? That's why they're requesting it. So why would that be a point of noncompliance if it's by definition, variation, a modification to the code?

Right. Understood. For certain properties, let's say the geometry really was the real reason that is unique to that particular property, no other property has that geometry, and that geometry created the reason for the non-compliance with the SEPPAC, then in that case, it would be compliant with the criteria because this isn't something that was due to the actions of the applicant. It's based on the actual geometry of the land. It's peculiar.

and and again this is not a self-imposed hardship it's it's peculiar to the land because of the curve and the linear nature of the of the lot right would you say that because i think you may mention to that in your staff report right that was a limiting factor correct really for the fund setback and staff some evaluation as far as the side step back not i wouldn't say it is it

affecting that simply because that's located the property line on the side is um horizontal completely 90 degrees the straight line i got i got a few more questions on each of the points but i don't know if maybe the applicant wants to go and be recognized to speak before yeah you could you have to come up and um i disagree with one premise if you can if you can just state your name and address for the record please jonathan offerman

Anything else? In your address. Oh, 1441 South Treasure. The way the house, because of the curve, there's only one spot to actually have a driveway. And I believe, and I'm not intimate with the codes, but I believe if the driveway cover was cantilevered, instead of it had three poles, we wouldn't be having this conversation so it's the it's the pole meeting the driveway and which is out of the setback so technically per the code i agree with mr pinder that that's the issue and uh but again the the special circumstances that i think this i i wrote around a couple weeks ago and looked at every literally every house in the neighborhood i mean i think there's one other house that has a condition like i do with the curve and the way the jerk driveway is jammed against the fence. There's no other place to obviously have a driveway. So, you know, that's in my mind would be the unique condition. And, you know, I, of course, now that I'm on my second year as a resident, if I wound the clock back to do this all over again, I certainly would not have proceeded this way. And I certainly wouldn't have voluntarily spent $10,000 just to get here. Which, if I may, I have a suggestion and I think everybody probably won't hear this. If you guys were aware that there was these people that were taking public records from people in this specific venue and sending them emails to defraud them out of money and sending them fake messages from North Bay Village, you could have just mentioned something to me. It cost me $4,000. I wired out I thought I wasn't going to be able to have this meeting. I had to wire out $3,500. It turns out it was fraudulent. And I've heard that it's been happening. You guys are aware of it. I wasn't aware. I know it's... I've been told it's on the website. But, you know, I'm sure you don't have 20 of these a day. If somebody could have let us know that this is going on, I would have never wired money to whoever that money wound up. And I thought I was wiring it to the town. So I spent another... I wired another $3,500 out because I thought this meeting was going to be canceled. So please, for other residents, make them aware that this is going on because I guarantee this will continue. And if they're not on the website, looking at the town website, how are they going to know? So I really think it would be beneficial for you guys to let... If people are going to come here or they're involved with you guys, you should be letting them know that there's... fraudsters using public information to use this venue to defraud them out of money. So I know this isn't why we're here, but I thought it was worth mentioning because I just found out about this a couple hours ago.

We appreciate the feedback. I believe that the application materials for all applicants have been revised to add a disclaimer or notice to applicants so that they are aware of that. This is something that's happening not just in North Bay Village. It's countrywide. It's unfortunately happening.

But, you know, as a resident, I'm like, oh, I need to get this right away. And I'm trying to scramble to do the right thing. And I'm scrambling, scrambling. I understand. Oh, my God.

Well, let me let me let me stop you because that's really not relevant to why we're here. But I would just say, Kevin, I'm right. But buyer beware. You need to follow. Also, there's all kinds of scams going on. and also in all parts of our existence today okay so uh i mean could we we like the feedback i think the attorney just said but in reality uh if if i was going to send 3 500 i'd make sure i'd know what i'm doing i'd make a call to the city i would do something private i wouldn't just it was just the timing was i understand i wasn't yeah i wasn't aware that this was public knowledge

So it's actually a very good scan.

I think it's a learning experience. I think it is. And we'll take your comments into consideration, but I don't see it as something that makes the city responsible for doing that.

I wasn't insinuating that the city was responsible. It was an opportunity that I was going to do in front of the people that deal with this every day for me to mention it, because I can assure you, you're going to have another resident standing here in a week on the same issue.

All right. Thank you. Anything else you'd like to say about the item?

No, just that one item I wanted to address in the meantime. If you guys don't need me for anything else specific, I'll sit back down.

No, that's fine.

I just want to make a point of clarification, Mr. Pender. Did you submit your staff report and back up into the record officially? If not, now would be the time to say that it's part of the record.

I'm sorry. I submitted it to the, sorry.

Into the record?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pinder.

Yeah, it was on the website.

Just as part of the hearing process, we should be doing that. The other thing that I would like to just remind the board members as you make your decision, remember that you're weighing the competent substantial evidence that's been provided or presented to you. And so you have Mr. Pinder's staff report, you have the applicant's testimony and you weigh the evidence, you are the trier of fact, you are the judge, you are the jury. So you are weighing whether the evidence has been presented to you, sways you one way or another, as far as the variance criteria.

Was this my opportunity to speak at length or just to that one issue?

This is your opportunity to make your case why you should receive a variance. No, this is your time to present whatever evidence you feel is necessary for the board to consider.

Yeah, I mean, I don't know how to really respond per item. As I said, I just, you know, and again, maybe Mr. Pinder can shed some light. But again, as I said, if it was can or levered, versus the poles being on the other side, I think that would be, I guess, per code. So per the picture that you guys saw, those poles are on about a set of foot into my driveway behind the palm trees and the fence. And, you know, the reason I put it up wasn't just because I didn't want my car to be hot. It's like one of the few houses left over there that are, my roof is probably only 10 feet high and I have a flat roof and, For whatever reason, anything that gets airborne because the house next to me is 35 feet high and they got some roofing materials that are, you know, and again, this may or may not be a cause for the code. But, you know, the reason why the resident did it was I kept, you know, pulling materials and debris and tree and roofing materials and construction materials off of my car. So I just, you know, I really didn't, you know, when I, of course, had the carport put in, foresee the events that were going to follow that. So that's really about all I have to say about that.

Point taken. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, you want to make comments now from people already?

I can just make one comment on the overhang the applicant and property owner is referencing. So, the code does allow a setback encroachment for a roof overhang up to 3 feet or 36 inches. Yes. This is exceeding it by a few inches. I believe this was three feet, five inches, but that if the poles were there and it was the overhang, the canopy itself was shorter by five or so inches, then it would be permittable. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

All right. So the comments that I wanted to make was just based on your report. I saw the staff report and just have a few questions just for my clarification to make sure that my reasoning is correct as to why you made the recommendations you made. So I just want to take each point if I can. Yeah. On the first point, the the peculiarity of the lot. Okay. And the way I see it is typically the lots on a block, the two end lots are the ones that are going to, because you did make a lot of comment about the circular linear peculiarity of this lot. So the two lots at the end are the ones that are actually going to always have that peculiarity, right? Correct. Because those are the ones that are at the end that corner lots that are going to have the circular peculiarity. half moon or whatever it is that you want to say. Just a thought experiment. If we look at a block that has 10 lots, and let's just say that each one of those lots, they want to put a carport similar in the same location. The only two lots that would be non-compliant would be the corner lots. So from that standpoint, wouldn't you say that those two lots have a peculiar aspect to them that the other eight, so that'd be a 20% versus 80% that don't have that peculiar configuration that may limit the position of where those two lots can place a carport? Okay.

I would say potentially, of course. It would depend on the actual layout of the structures on the site. And I would also say that in 4A swimming analysis, it wouldn't be considered peculiar simply because there are other lots with that exact same circumstance, meaning in this case, it because of how the block is set up. So it wouldn't be peculiar to this specific property because there are other lots.

It would be peculiar to all the corner lots. That's what I'm saying.

Right.

But then again, that's assuming that 100% of all the corner lots would want to install. Right. Then you would look at it that way. Exactly. In the sense of If you're looking just at a block and then, you know, there's a lot more rectangular lots that would classify, that wouldn't have to ask for variance because of the configuration of the lot, right? Right. This one, the hardship is, and the way I'm seeing it, what the applicant said is that he could not locate the structure on the curvilinear part of the lot because it wouldn't fit there. The setbacks would be even worse, correct?

Correct. I'm assuming that. Looking at the property layout as it is exactly with the structure, that would be correct.

Okay. So the way I'm looking at it and reasoning is, well, would the curvilinear nature of that one particular lot constitute a peculiarity to that lot that may be a non-self-imposed hardship on the applicant?

Again, I would still say potentially. Potentially. Because I would have to point back to the existing structure, the principal structure. It complies with that side setback. And as I mentioned earlier, with the front setback, staff is in agreement with continuing that building line. In fact, as I think I pointed out, maybe I didn't, the corner of the home is actually set back approximately five feet, four inches, if I'm remembering correctly, from where it's closest to that curvy linear front property line.

Okay, so let's just say potentially. Yes, I say potentially. Okay. All right. So if we look at number two, point number two now, as far as the self-imposed or the self-imposed or if it's something that was peculiar to them. hardship is not self-imposed um the way i see it and the way i read your your your comments is that uh you're saying that yeah there is a limitation to a lot because of the curvature nature of the of a lot but that that's not the only reason why uh he he fails that one it's also because he failed also to pull the permits All right. So my question there is to you is, could he have located that carport anywhere else in the property, obviously in the front of the property where it's practical, that would have met the code standards without having to request a variance? Is it had he, for example... gone through the procedure and pulled the permit. Could the inspector have instructed him, hey, don't put it here because you're not going to be compliant here. But this other spot, you can put it because here it would be allowed and you would be within the code. Is there in that lot a spot?

just looking at a at a quick overview of the property it would appear that there may not be a spot however um if the structure if there was a way to construct the structure without the post as mentioned earlier and it complied with the three foot encroachment that's allowed by the code then it would be able to be located in the spot where it's at, but be five, about five inches shorter.

So it died about a five inch difference.

Correct.

Okay.

It was kind of leaving.

Yeah.

Yeah. So go ahead. Sorry.

No, no. I mean, finish. I just, I don't, I want to make sure that you get your point across. No, that was my point. Okay. So then the question then becomes, at least in my mind is, you know, how do we deal with this, with this hardship issue? Is it a self-imposed hardship or is it peculiar to the, to the property because they're covering it linear nature of the lot. And, um, if I, if I know this, if, if I'm correct here, um, uh, Florida land law use says that, uh, You first have to see if the hardship was caused by action of the applicant. But you also have to test whether that hardship existed as if standard. The applicant had taken no action. So if we look at it from that standpoint, had he not taken the action of failing to pull the permit, would that have solved the noncompliance issue? And I'd like you to answer that, to address that.

Right. As it currently exists, I would say no, because as I mentioned earlier, there is the cancer lever opportunity. It would have to be proven then that the cancer lever at 36 inches was insufficient for the applicant to I would say, safely parked underneath it or for it to provide the protection that the applicant desires. So without that analysis, I couldn't say that it was self-imposed.

Okay. So, I mean, regardless of whether he had pulled the permit or not, it would have still been the same limitations. Correct. Okay. So... Based on that, then, I think we need to separate those two because when you're talking about code enforcement, that's typically an enforcement issue or a punitive. You saw that through fines, et cetera. That's dealt like that. And you can't really say that because he failed to pull the permit that causes the self-imposed hardship. Would you agree with that? Yes, I agree. Okay. All right. So I would say that that's what I had to say about the second point. Okay. Okay. And the third point that you... I want to understand also the part when you said that not having the carport doesn't deprive... him or the applicant of the enjoyment of the property. And that's true. But wouldn't that be the case for anyone wanting to install a carport given that the carport is outside the property? So would we ever consider under that standard granting a variance to anyone that wants to put a carport in their property? Do you understand what I'm saying? Not 100%. Okay. You're saying that, and I can read it, and I don't want to belabor the point. I just want to make sure that I understand your reasoning. The absence of the carport does not prevent a reasonable use of the property and a single family resident does not preclude the property owner from parking the vehicle in the property. The principal structure remains fully functional and the existing driveway continues to provide adequate off-street parking for personal vehicles without the need for setback encroachment, albeit uncovered. Furthermore, as stated previously, protection from the weather, sun exposure, wind, debris are commonly experienced by all properties. Okay, so that part is correct. My question is... Wouldn't that be applicable to any property or any applicant that wants to seek a variance to install a carport? It's not really something that's going to prevent anyone from the use of the main structure of the house.

Correct. It is an accessory to the main use. It's an accessory, right? Exactly.

So would that be a justification for noncompliance?

I would say no. There are properties, at least in my experience, I'm not 100% sure with North Bay Village yet, that in some cases they cannot have a swimming pool because the home takes up more floor or more land area. than maybe their neighbors. So because of the setback that's left between that rare property line and that rare wall, it makes it impossible to construct a swimming pool. And in that case, the property owner would not be able to be granted a variance for the swimming pool because it's an accessory structure.

Okay.

Okay.

So, but again, we're talking about a carport. It's not really the same thing. A carport can always be moved around. Okay. And then the final thing that I have here is on point five. And no, there I'm in agreement. I think where the applicant failed as burden of proof is showing that, you know, This was the minimum that he could put up. He talked about standard size cars, et cetera, which there's really no standard size car. He might have helped himself a little bit more talking about different sizes of carports, saying this is the smallest one I can, the minimum I can install here to try to be as compliant as I can with the code. but you know that again the benefit of the doubt because i'm thinking that you know a cardboard is not really a decorative item right it's something that it's more of an eyesore than anything else that you have to put in front of your house just for the because i guess i guess the benefits of you know protection offers from rain and sun and all that outweighs the fact that it's an eyesore so i'm going to think that acting in his own best interest he's going to put the smallest one in the best location or wherever he can put it that causes minimum impact on the on his home, how his home looks. So based on that and also on he partially complies with part with number six, right? Which you said. Correct. Which we think that pretty much he complies and then he complies with number seven. Correct. And the other thing that was very important for me is knowing that there are no neighbors that are coming To complain, it's pretty much, you know, it doesn't have a negative impact on the community.

Right.

And I haven't received any phone calls or anything that neighbors are saying that, hey, this is an eyesore for me. It's interfering with my view. It's not doing anything that has a negative impact on his neighbors or the community or in general. So based on that, I'm inclined to, you know, grant the variance. That's my input.

And I'll just state for the board, I do have conditions of approval should the board decide to recommend.

Oh, this is only Mike.

Should the board. But those conditions are there if the board makes a decision and a village commission.

Can we hear the conditions of approval, please?

Sure. Let me give me one moment to pull up my staff report. Okay. For the conditions of approval, number one states the granting of these variances shall be limited to the legalization of the existing carport as constructed with a reduced front setback of 19 feet and a side interior setback of 3.1 feet. No additional encroachment or further reduction of required setbacks shall be permitted. Number two deals with permit compliance. Excuse me. All required after-the-fact building permits shall be obtained, and the carport shall be inspected and approved in compliance with the Florida Building Code, the ULDC, and any other applicable regulations. Number three, the property to which the variance applies shall be in strict conformance with the documentation submitted as part of the variance application, subject to any modifications required by these conditions, which we aren't requiring any modification. Number four, no expansions. Approval is limited to the existing carport and its current location. Any future enlargement or modification within the setback areas shall require separate review and approval. Number five deals with cost recovery charges pursuant to Section 5.12, and a state sending must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Number six is pursuant to Section 7.4 of the ULDC, and it deals with the expiration of the variances, which they shall expire two years from the date of final action by the Village Commission if no substantial construction has occurred, which the cardboard is existing. And number seven, the outstanding code enforcement case shall be resolved and all accrued fines and associated costs shall be paid in full. And that concludes the conditions of approval.

Can you please just explain to me further the second to last one about two years?

Yes. So the approval of the variance, once the Village Commission makes it, let's say the Village Commission approves the variance request, the applicant will have two years from the date of the final action to, let's say, construct the carport. It's already existing. So for that, the applicant will be required to pull the necessary building permits and get that approval within those two years.

Okay, thank you. Unless anybody has anything further, I'd like to make a motion to approve with conditions.

When you say approve, are you to grant the variance? Is that correct?

Yes, correct.

Do we want to know if the applicant has any issues with the conditions that were read to you? No? You're in agreement? Okay. Okay.

Before we take a vote, I just want to, there's no one here in the audience. Okay.

There's no one on Zoom that has requested to speak on the item and there's no one physically here. Board Member Abramson? Yes. Vice Chair Gonzalez?

Yes.

Board Member Murphy?

Yes.

Board Member Turvides?

No.

Motion passes 3-1.

That's it, right?

Motion. Anything else or should we motion to adjourn?

Okay.

I'll let the motion to adjourn in a second.

Good evening, everyone. Good evening. Bye-bye.