Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

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.

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.

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...

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

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

Is that him trying to get into the store?

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

Gotcha. Okay. We may proceed. Thank you.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

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 h

So it died about a five inch difference.

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 existe

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.

So would that be a justification for noncompliance?

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

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.

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

Motion. Anything else or should we motion to adjourn? I'll let the motion to adjourn in a second.