Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

The time now is 6.30 PM. The Pembroke Pines Board of Adjustments will now be called to order. We'll have roll call by clerk, Ms. Bostrom.

Member Avendandalo. Member Brito.

Here.

Member Pitts. Here. Member O'Meara. Member Tucker. Tucker.

Turner.

Turner, I'm sorry. I apologize. Chairman Krall.

Here.

You have the quorum, and Mr. Turner will be a voting member this evening.

Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion right now for excused absence for member and .

I make a motion to approve the absences of our fellow committee members.

I second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes. General counsel will now give instructions to those presenting from the committee tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the members of the public, the Board of Adjustment is comprised of members of your fellow citizenry of the great city of Pembroke Pines. They are all volunteers. They're not paid to be here. These are true public servants serving the citizens. They're here tonight to decide and hear Matters brought before them, we have five properties that are going to be heard tonight for various variance requests. For the decisions of this board for approval, require a minimum of three votes. Short of those three votes, the item will be deemed denied. These hearings tonight are quasi-judicial. That means at the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask you all to please stand and be sworn in if you plan on speaking tonight. If you do plan on speaking when you get to the podium, there is a sign-in sheet. You need to sign in your name and state on the record your name and address for the record. The city will present the item for review. The chairman will then go over a brief overview of the property case, and then you'll have every opportunity, if you're here on that particular property, to provide any evidence or testimony you will give. With that being said, if you plan on speaking tonight, would you all please rise and raise your right hand to be sworn in? If you don't get sworn in, you can't speak.

I suggest that everyone please stand and raise your hands.

Unless you don't want to speak. All right. You swear upon the testimony you'll give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? You do? Yes? All right. You may be seated, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, General Counsel.

I'd like to go back to the... Madam Clerk, we have a correction to the minutes. I would like to read the correction. I have about five pages here. It's from the March 5, 2026 minutes. We didn't know.

Can I just read the part that's in the agenda box?

Yes, please.

Although the minutes of the March 5, 2026 meeting were previously approved, there was a Scribner error on the vote for the agenda item, ZVR-2026-0053, Leverus. That was later found to be incorrect. The correction to the vote will not affect the outcome as the item still passed, but with a vote of 3 to 2, in favor instead of the unanimous vote shown in the approved minutes. And on the paper you were given, it's on the second page. It's the beginning of the minutes for that. And the correction is on page four, I believe, right? I put unanimous in there, and it was a three to two vote. I'm sorry, on page six is where the vote shows.

OK. Thank you, Madam Clerk. With the corrections to the March 5, 2026, with those corrections, may I hear a motion for the correction to those minutes?

Are you going to take a motion separately on that from the minutes of the June meeting?

Yes.

OK.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve the minutes with the corrections.

From March 5th, 2026. From March 5th, 2026. Is there a motion to approve? Do I have a second?

I'll second.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passed. He said there's a June 5th.

June 4th.

June 4th. OK. I've got a few sheets here.

The minutes for the June 4th meeting.

OK. Madam Clerk, I'll let you read them.

Thank you. This just needs a motion for that one.

OK. I give a motion to approve the minutes for June 4th. Second.

We have a motion to approve the June 4, 2026 Board of Adjustment minutes. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes passed. Thank you.

Mr. Chair?

Yes.

I assume you're going to move the selection for the officers to the end of the meeting. Yes. All right. Thank you. I just want to make sure.

The first coming before the board would be ZVR 2026-0006, Devlin and Marco Ruiz. Will you please come forward? Please sign in and press the button to speak. This one here?

Yes.

You got it. OK. Devlin and Marco Ruiz owners submitted eight residential zoning references requests to legalize existing construction of the property located 11911 Northwest 22nd Street in the Pimmock Lakes neighborhood, which is zoned single family residential district R1C. The Board of Adjustments, during the April 2, 2026 meeting, approved seven out of the eight variances and tabled one variance request. And I will not read the ones that were approved. And you're bringing before us this evening number six, which is ZVR2026-0006 to allow 75% front-lot coverage and said it required 40% front lot coverage for an existing circular driveway and a single family residential property typical lot. And this was tabled back on April 2, 2026. Per the As-Built Survey document, the petitioners are still requesting the requested 75% in lieu of the 40% front lot coverage. The applicant is aware that board consideration A residential variances request does not preclude the property owner from obtaining all necessary development-related approvals or permits. For the city's HOA list, there is no HOA in the neighborhood where the property is located. The owner submitted to Mr. Christian Zamora, email dated July 14, 2026. Good morning, Christian. given that any alterations I have proposed create more zoning violations, and the alterations you have proposed completely negate the references we have already obtained. I would like to go back to the board with my original plan and let them take a vote on it as is. I have given this much thought and do not see where you and I can come to an agreement that will satisfy us both and comply with the zoning code as you interpret it. Please let me know if there's any more that you need from me. Thank you. My pleasure. And you signed that? Yes, sir. OK. Do you have anything else to add in lieu to what we've just read in the report?

Yeah, I could add a little explanation to that. I prepared a little statement I could read to give you somewhat of an explanation.

Please proceed.

First of all, thank you for your continued time and voluntary service to our community. Following your recommendation at our last hearing, I made two separate good faith offers to compromise on reducing the footprint. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, we were unable to find a mutually agreeable solution. Each solution proposed inadvertently triggered secondary code violations. Specifically, in my first proposal, I offered to remove approximately 140 square feet of pavers to create a square and in turn a gravel drainage buffer, allowing water to drain prior to reaching the property line. However, I was advised that this modification would reduce the functional driveway width to seven feet, violating the municipal 10-foot minimum driveway. In my second proposal, I offered a more aggressive reduction of over 300 square feet of pavers by removing the remainder of the pavers within the proposed square. This option was also unfeasible as removing that specific configuration would legally classify the remaining front structure as a front yard patio, which constitutes a separate code violation. Not sure where the code, how it reads, but I'm not sure. To Mr. Zamora's credit, he countered with three options, but each required a complete removal and reconstruction of the driveway to strictly meet baseline codes, including setbacks previously approved by this board. After much thought and consideration, given the vast gap between our positions, and because this would entirely wipe out the variances previously granted, I ask that we return to the Board to vote on the original variance based on the unique physical merits and necessary utility of the property. I ask you to consider the following facts. As stated in our original request, during the week, my wife cares for our elderly uncle at home. The current width and configuration of the driveway are functionally necessary to allow him to transfer from vehicles and move freely without severe risk of falling. As I also mentioned during the original request, I have seven vehicles. Local ordinance strictly prohibit parking vehicles on the grass, swale, or street. The current driveway footprint is structurally necessary to keep all household vehicles on paved surface, proactively preventing a separate code violation. Number three, my property is situated directly on the lake, and the rear of the lot slopes dramatically downward toward the water, which helps tremendously with drainage. Number four is my home is completely guttered. Most downspouts discharge directly toward the rear and sides away from the front lot, minimizing front yard runoff. Five, our immediate neighbors completely support this application and attested at the previous hearing that our neighborhood experiences Absolutely no drainage or runoff issues from this configuration. Finally, while the pavers don't meet the technical definition of a fully permeable system under current code, they are installed over sand, allowing for natural percolation compared to solid concrete. For these reasons, the current driveway serves a critical safety function, maintains legal staging for our vehicles, and does not impair public safety. I respectfully request your approval tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll start with the questions. Does anyone from the audience have any comments, either in support or against this variance? Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, come forward, please. Introduce yourself and sign in, please. Please sign in and introduce yourself and your residents.

While she's doing that, Mr. Chair, if the other folks in the audience want to just put their support on the record, you still need to come and sign in. You don't have to do a long speech, but it will be recorded if you do that. If not, it won't be, just for the record.

So I'm the direct labor.

Please state your name for the record.

Patricia Park. I'm a direct neighbor of Marco and . Everybody's going to talk. So I just wanted to let you know that I'm just going to read. a little thing that I had put together. As a neighbor, I've had the opportunity to observe both the property and the situation firsthand. I'm directly beside them, just to let you know. In my experience, Marco and Devlin have been responsible and respectful members of our community. The work in question does not appear to have caused any disruption, none at all. No safety concerns or negative impact my property or the surrounding neighborhood. I understand the importance of adhering to city regulations and permitting requirements. However, I respectfully ask that you take into consideration the context of this situation. It is my belief that the issue may have been an oversight or misunderstanding rather than intentional noncompliance. I would encourage the city to work collaboratively with Marco and Devlin towards a reasonable resolution. Our neighborhood really benefits from residents who invest in maintaining and improving their properties, and I believe this situation can be resolved in a way that supports both the community standards and fairness. Thank you for your time and consideration. It has not affected my property any, and it looks really good for the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Just take your name and sign in, please. Vincent Duclos.

Can you repeat that, sir?

Vincent Duclos. Thank you. D-U-C-L-O-S. Thank you.

And if you want to just say you support, you can just say that.

I support it. I have the same setup and no issues whatsoever. Everything, the pool, the driveway, same setup. So what he says is accurate.

Timothy Neal, Northwest 23rd Street, directly across the lake. I know one of the biggest issues that you gentlemen are concerned with is the drainage. The drainage on the lake in that neighborhood has just never been an issue. I've been there over 25 years. With the heavy rains the last few days, zero drainage problems. Thank you.

Jim Oramas. Could you repeat again, please? Jim Oramas, O-R-A-M-A-S. And I support the decision. Again, no drainage problems. Been living in the neighborhood for over 20 years. Work from home, so I'm constantly there. Never seen an issue. And honestly, one of the nicest houses on the block. So thank you.

I'm Diane Neal. I live directly across the lake. And I just have to, rather than spend my time repeating every word that the other speakers have said, I agree and feel the very same way. They are a credit to the Pembroke Lakes neighborhood.

Thank you.

My name is Eduardo, last name Jorge, and I'm actually going to be his translator. We both approve of it, and I think it's a great thing that they're trying to make their neighborhood nicer.

Laura Cruz.

I live right across from them. It's the house right immediately across from them. I approve. I don't have any problems with them having the driveway the way it is, and they don't have any floating issues. I would know because our cars normally are against each other, so I don't have a problem with it. And I've been in this neighborhood for about 14 years. We were there right before they even moved in. So we have seen everything they have ever done.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for coming tonight.

Hi, my name is Eileen Bernstein. I live next to Laura, who just left, so I am also directly across the street from their house. I've lived there for 16 years. This is the best that house has ever looked. They've done a beautiful job. There is no drainage issues at all on our street, and I love my view, and I hope you don't do anything to change it.

My name is Norma Gaudius. I live three houses down. I've been here for 46 years. There is no problem. I support.

Thank you.

Okay. He has done nothing but beautify our block. Could you repeat your name, please? Norma Gaudius. I'm sorry. Did you hear it? Yes, thank you.

Hello, my name is Mary Lozano, and I support, and I think their home looks beautiful. Everything looks good. I've never seen any flooding.

Thank you for coming.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for allowing us to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Ruiz's. My name is Daniel Lozano. They've done this, obviously, there's three attributes that I consider that drove them to do this. One is there's some physical situations that they had that needed for them to have that driveway. That's number one. Secondly, it actually has beautified the neighborhood. So if you take the time yourselves, have that opportunity, just drive by there and see his home and how that has, if anything, helped beautify the neighborhood and obviously increase the property value for everyone that's his neighbors in his area. It's just, I mean, it's still a model home. And thirdly, obviously, what we're talking about here is the drainage. There's no drainage issues there. There's no flooding. We've had a very, very heavy summer of rains. So we could attest to the fact that there has been zero flooding on the streets attributed to his driveway. And again, a lot of that has been the way he's constructed it, where he has his drainage from his gutters facing towards the lake. So he's done a wonderful job and has been very successful at that without no impact to the neighbors. Thank you so much. Thank you for coming.

Is there anyone else? Thank you. Staff, any comments before I turn over to the board here? OK. I'll start the questions with Mr. Turner.

Good evening, everyone. I'd like to know, what was the three options that Samara

Well, I guess. Oh, yeah. He sent them to me in an email. It was basically. No, but they could. Oh, yeah, they could. I'm sorry.

Joe Yachik, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development. I was only aware of one option, the last option that he talked of, the two I was not aware of. The first option that he talked about was, I believe, a plus or minus 100 square foot application of gravel. And that's a difficult item for us because he wanted to gravel a portion of his property right in the middle of the driveway itself. City code requires that a driveway have paved surface. So if he would have graveled his property and code compliance would have seen him parked on the gravel, they would have had to give him a violation. So while he could have done that gravel, He could have done it and brought the number down Because he probably there's a high propensity that he would have parked in that particular location given he has what seven vehicles you said seven vehicles It would have been impossible for him to be able to utilize his driveway appropriately aware of, though. I apologize. The second one.

I know you mentioned it was three. No, I believe he misunderstood the question. You asked what Zamora had offered me, right? Correct. Yeah. He sent those to me in an email. I don't know. So Christian sent me After I gave him the second proposal, he sent me an email with three layouts of basically just standard driveways with the five-foot setbacks.

So basically he must have given him options to do that fell within code that you chose not to do.

Yeah, I would have just negated every other variance that we got for the setbacks. It was just a complete redo. It had nothing to do with what's existing now. And I can pull those up in an email if you want to see them.

No, that's all right. So there's 100 square feet. That's all the questions I got now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To Mr. Pitts.

No questions, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Brito.

No questions.

Mr. Ruiz, you have seven vehicles parked in a single-family residence.

No, I have seven vehicles that I own. I don't have them all parked there at all times. Two of them are in the garage, but I do interchange three or four cars in the driveway at all times, yes.

Your neighbors have commented in support for drainage. It's more than just drainage. I'm sorry? It's more than just drainage. Do you have, underneath the covered area there, Are those paved? Next to the pool, there's a covered area. Is it paved underneath the covered area?

In the rear of the property?

Yes.

Yes.

OK. Your entire residential lot has a single family home. Your entire lot is paved. Yes, you don't have a drainage issue. But we do have state and local codes we have to comply with. The code, you've met with staff. That was the time to reach an agreement at that time with Mrs. Samora and the rest of the staff. It says you cannot come to an agreement. And our requirements are, may I read it? Required 40% front lot coverage. And you're requesting 75% lot coverage. And we have every resident want to come and exceed that, we're going to have a problem. Understood. So you've had your chance to meet with staff, and you cannot come to an agreement. Am I correct? That's correct. All right. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion for ZBR 2026-0006.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZVR 2026-0006 to allow 75% front lot coverage instead of the required 40% lot coverage for an existing circular driveway in a single family residential property typical lot under section 155.301 variant subsection 1C. Thank you. I second.

It's been properly motioned and seconded. Roll call, Madam Clerk.

Member Pitts?

No.

Vice Chair Brito?

No.

Member Turner?

No.

Chairman Krall?

No.

Motion fails.

Please see staff, and they can direct you on the next process, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all for coming and support. Next item would be ZVR 2026-0015-0018, Manuska Vasquez, and Christian Filippo. Good evening. Please sign in.

Hello.

OK. The owner submitted four residential zoning variances request to legalize the existing driveway and pool deck for the property located at 520 Southwest 178th Way in the Silver Lakes neighborhood, which is zoned plan unit development. And it does not address accessory structures. Therefore, revisions of the city's land development code apply. In August 5, 2024, the applicant submitted building permit application number RX24-09299 to construct a circular driveway at the property. The permit application was reviewed and approved by the city on April 2025. However, there has been no progress building permits activity since June 2025. On December 28, 2025, the city's code compliance cited the property for work performed without building permits. Case number 251, 204, 274. As a result of the existing modification made to the property, the applicant's presenting a plan for the following request. ZVR 2026-0015 to allow 55% front lot coverage instead of required 40% front lot coverage for an existing circular driveway and a single family residential typical lot. Also, ZVR 2026-0016 to allow 54% width of lot instead of required 40% width of the lot for the same circular driveway. After reviewing the petition's initial request and according to the property's survey, it was discovered further changes, pool deck in the rear and site required setbacks, and the owner would like to include additional requests for the existing deficiencies. ZVR 2026-0017 to allow 2.3 feet augmenting to 2.7 feet setback along a segment of the rear property line instead of required 5 feet rear setback. for an existing pool deck in a single-family residence. Also, ZBR 2026-0018 to allow 3.3-foot decrease into 2.7-foot setback along the segment of the southern south property line, and so required 5-foot side setback. Per staff review of the city archives, no permanent information can be found for the detected work on the property. and the existing driveway and deck have existed in the property since December 2026 and 2013, respectively. A letter to the city. The owner says, our household consists of nine family members residing in a five-bedroom home, each with varying work schedules. Due to these circumstances, it's become impractical and unsafe to continuously move vehicles between approximately 3 AM and 5 AM. The women in the household do not feel safe performing these vehicle movements during early morning hours. Furthermore, one of our sons served in the US Air Force and does not maintain a fixed schedule, which further complicates parking logistics. As a result of these challenges, we submit the appropriate documents to our homeowners association requesting approval of the installation of a circular driveway. This request was reviewed and formally approved. And it would help functionally and compliance with the requirements of the household. Sincerely, Manosca Vasquez. Have I read the report? accurately and to the record?

Yes.

You have the time to add any comments that you may deem necessary.

Well, like, I would say after we have the circular driveway, everything is easier, like with the parking and also the space. We had a basketball court. All the kids play there, too. Like, The safety for my son's wife, because she always come around 4, 5, is 100%. Now I feel more comfortable because we leave the space for her. And my son, he leave out the house also around 5 or 6.

Sure.

So the reason or the circular driveway is the better for us to park because we have to park one behind the other.

Is this the finished product right here? Okay. On the left-hand side.

Yes.

Okay. As we mentioned to the prior applicant, we increased the percentage from 35% to 40% last year or a few years ago. Would you be able to reduce the net 55% down to perhaps 50%

We have now 55%?

You have 55% now. Reducing it just 5%.

Because the proposal, I don't know how much we, the last proposal that we sent, that would be, we're reducing the circular driveway already.

Yeah, your report here says it's down to, you're requesting 55%.

55? Yes. So you're asking for 55. Yeah, we can try to see how we can do that.

I think you would have success. And we have to, as we say here, we have many communities coming before us, many residents. And you saw prior, 75%, some areas are completely paved over with concrete. Here we have pavers, which does allow some drainage. And we have to be cognizant that there's possible flooding, even though we might not have had it recently. But we must always look at the city requirements and calculations first. And that's why I said that reduction, perhaps, maybe 5% may be agreeable.

We can try. I mean, it would be like do a new plan with a 50%? Yes. And send it to?

To meet with staff. And I don't think staff would that. The staff is here right now. In fact, you can walk over to them. And if you're agreeable, we can make some concessions here. Right now, any questions from Mr. Turner?

Well, I don't know if they can redesign it right tonight. No, no, agreed to. They can agree to meet with the city, but I don't know if they can agree to lower their requests now because they don't know what the design is going to look like. So they may want to not do that.

Mr. Chair, I propose to table this till next meeting to see if they can get. That's taken care of. Because there's more than one variance here. Yes.

That's another thing. The backyard, we bought the house just like that. We didn't do anything.

Say that again, please.

In the backyard, the backyard was like that when we bought the house.

Yeah, but what it is is that they didn't get permits for that. And so now there's a finding. So now it needs to be taken care of. It's unfortunate that you guys have to take care of it, but it has to be taken care of nonetheless.

Okay. If you're willing to meet with staff to address the first violation, we can vote on the remaining ones tonight.

If you're willing to look at the 55% reduction, we can vote on the remaining violations tonight or variance tonight. Would you be willing to meet with staff to address the reduction?

Yes.

OK, thank you. As the co-chair mentioned, we could table that one and vote on the remaining five variances tonight if it's agreeable with you. Mr. Turner, any questions on any of the variances?

Yeah, it might have to be the first two because both of them deal with the driveway. Yes.

Right.

Yeah. You're at 54% and 55%. And if we could reduce that down to perhaps 50%, it would be advantageous.

So reduce the circular driveway to 50%? Yes. A 5% reduction.

Let's see how... I think you can make it work. Mr. Turner.

So my question goes to the planning team. So the 55%, that's what it is currently now without after you guys review and had the discussion with them and editing. I try to understand, was it any variance from what they did from? The original. This is their driveway that they basically did without approval. Did they did any adjustments from talking to you guys?

I believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I believe they came forward as is. There may be an opportunity here for them to increase the radii of the grassed area in the front to achieve the number that you're proposing. But clearly, especially after the fact, many people will propose to move forward with what they have to see if the board would be amenable to that, because that's the least costly alternative for them before they have to make modifications.

So what was the suggestion from?

So we would have to go back. I want to be very careful here. I don't want to design at the dais. No, no, we do not. Yeah, yeah. I just want to know what suggestions have you guys actually set forth. But a quick eye I can see here is the radii, the circular radii where they make the turn. There is an opportunity to expand it a little bit more. We may be able to get down further. to that 5% that you're particularly talking about. The devil's in the details. So we'll certainly work with them as best we can. There is opportunity here. It's definitely not without, with minimal, I would say minimal construction. So we can work with them.

Yeah. I think I have the chair on this. It's within limits, but I would like the city to have some input in what's going on with the driveway, for sure.

Mr. Pitts. Yes.

Could I ask staff to put back up the visual photo of the front area? Thank you. Yeah, it's better here than my pictures. Not really a question, more of like a comment, but is there enough space on the left side for you to park the car vertically? Yeah, so where you have your truck located and then you have the white vehicle that's sort of like on the turn, is there enough room for you to park the car vertically? No. It's not, so in that particular area there. So yeah, that's what I was looking at. It doesn't allow you because of the planters that is in that location. So that's out further and separate than the, okay. All right, I'm seeing what's happening here. But you don't utilize the vehicle to, go around the swell area. You're just using it because you can't go completely up to the front of the house. Okay, I think that makes a difference in my understanding of it. Okay.

Yeah, we use like, the other side would be like extra to park if somebody gonna come late or if they have to leave early or if we had a visitor because we don't have visitor parking either in the association. And they don't want a car on the street.

They don't allow a car on the street anymore.

Yeah, we understand.

OK.

I see it. I see it. I see what's happening.

Even the neighbors, we have one empty spot. And they had a visitor. They park in my parking lot. We help each other like that, because we don't have no.

Yeah.

If the radii doesn't work, you may can just kind of reduce the width slightly and still be able to make that.

The width in the left side?

Yeah, like maybe able to just come in just as. I mean, that's the plan, like to go down.

Yeah, okay. Like make the island bigger.

Mm-hmm. And then you'll still be able to kind of return it. We still have it. OK. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you. Mr. Brito.

No further questions.

OK. As you can gather, we're volunteers. We're homeowners like yourself. And sometimes we may bend the rules a little bit too much, go beyond what's normally required. But we're here to help you. If there are certain things that we could do as far as the first two items, meeting with staff and coming back, I'd like to obtain a motion for ZVR 2026-005 and ZVR 2026-0016 to be tabled.

Second. I can't make the motion.

OK. Do I do them both at the same time?

You can. OK. Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to table ZVR 2026-0015 and ZVR 2026-0016. I second. The motion is second to table ZVR 2026-0015 and 0016.

Properly in motion, second. Roll call, please.

Mayor Perpitz?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brito? Yes. Member Turner?

Yes.

Chairman Krall? Yes.

Motion passes. Okay. Motion to address ZVR 2026-0017 to allow 3.3 foot augmenting to 2.7 setback along a segment of the rear property instead of the required five foot rear setback for an existing pool deck and a single family residential property lot.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZVR 2026-0017 to allow 2.3 augmenting to 2.7 setback along the segment of the rear property line instead of the required five rear setback for an existing pool deck and a single family residential property typical lot under section 155.301, variance one, subsection C. I second.

The property moved and seconded. Roll call, Madam Clerk.

Member Pitts?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brito?

Yes.

Member Turner?

Yes.

Chairman Krall? Yes.

Motion passes. Motion for ZVR 2026-0018.

This one also involves the driveway. So it may be affected by changes that may be proposed. So you may want to table this one, because it may increase. This last one, 18. Involves the driveway too, correct, Joe? No, just the rear deck. Just the pool deck. It's the rear? OK. All right.

I'm sorry.

Pool this way and then the pool this way.

OK. I got you. I'm sorry. All right. Thank you, General Counsel. ZBR 2026-0018 to allow 3.7 decrease into 2.7 foot setback.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZBR 2026-0018 to allow 3.3 decreasing to 2.7 setback along a segment of the southern side property line instead of the required five foot size setback for an existing pool patio and a single family residential property typical lot under section 155.301 variance 1 subsection C.

I second. Probably motion second. Roll call, Madam Clerk.

Member Pitt.

Yes.

Vice Chair Brito.

Yes.

Member Turner. Yes. Chairman Krall. Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you. Please see the clerk and, sorry, the staff for the requirements and to prepare for the next board meeting. Thank you. Thank you. And good luck. Jeannie McGarry.

Need to sign in again?

Yes, please. Yes, that was of course another variance. The owner submitted seven residential zoning appearances, request to legalize an existing circular driveway for the property located at 701 Southwest 71st Way in the Boulevard Heights neighborhood, which is zoned single-family residential district R1C. On October 2, 2025, the city decided the property for work performed without permits. Code case number 251003217. In October 27, 2025, the applicant submitted building permit application number RX25-10214 to construct a circular drive at the property. However, the building permit application cannot be approved. The work on the property exceeds the provisions of the city land development code. The requests are for ZVR 2026-0019 to allow 46% front lot coverage for an existing driveway and a single family residential lot. ZVR 2026-0020 to allow 46% width of lot, instead of required 40% width of a lot for the existing drive. Also, ZVR 2026-0021 to allow 2 foot 4 setback along a segment of the north side property line instead of required 5 foot of an existing circular driveway in a single family residence. ZVR 2026-0022 to allow an existing 6 foot 6 wide walkway along a segment instead of required 3-foot wide in the single-family lot. ZVR 2026-0023 to allow 2-foot 6, augmenting to 3-foot 6, set back on the rear property line, so required 5-foot. ZVR 2026-0024 to allow 2-foot 6, augmenting to 2-foot 11, as opposed to required 5-foot. ZVR 2026-0025 to allow 5 foot, reduced to 2 foot 6 in the required 3 foot wide side setback. Staff, I'm looking at ZVR 2026-0022 to allow existing 6 foot 6 wide walkway as opposed to required 3 foot wide. Is that a typo? Was it 2 foot 6? ZVR 2026-0022.

No, it wasn't a typo. If you look at page, I don't know what page this is, the proposal and the backup, it's this particular page.

It's the, it is the, I can't find my pairings here.

It's the one to the top of the screen?

Yes, it's the top of the screen. You'll see that the width of that walkway is six foot six inches. Now, normally, we would allow a three-foot walkway on the side of the house.

OK. It's bigger.

OK. We call that a walkway for the purposes of getting back to the back of your home. There's no other. It's not a patio. It's considered a walkway to us.

OK. Yes, sir.

He's talking about the north side or the south side?

It's on the north side. At the top there.

Towards the corner of the house?

That long walkway. Oh, OK. At the very top. It's six foot six. And we require three foot.

You don't recognize it?

I do.

Oh, OK.

I'm looking at where the pool equipment is at and also the .

Yes, it's a pool system.

Yes, right there. Yes. So if I reduce it down to .

OK, go ahead and state your name for the record, sir. Duclos Finson.

And after what I've seen, is there anything else here? OK. He also submitted, I am requesting a variance to allow my driveway to remain in its current configuration. The existing driveway measurements provided us ability to safely park our vehicles on the property rather than on the swell or public right of way. While maintaining the driveway in its present form also helps reserve a healthy lawn and overall landscape appearance by preventing vehicles from parking in my grassy area. I consider to please consider approving these variances. Is there anything like to add to the report here, Mr. Curriott? Anything else like to add to this report? Or any more comments?

It's just the top left picture, I have another truck with a trailer. So sometime I have a boat parked there. So if I reduce that and have grass or gravel, it'll cause erosion and stuff like that.

OK. All right. Anyone from the audience, any comments? Staff? No comments? OK. Mr. Turner.

No questions.

Mr. Pitts. Just one question about the, as we talked about the north portion, the segment that they indicated that was I believe that one was six feet. Other than the pool equipment, is there anything else on that portion of the house? Do you keep your trash cans? What's on that side of the house other than the pool? There it is. Oh, sure. Yeah, approach. Oh, is that just a deck box over there?

OK. Yeah.

OK. All right. Yeah.

OK. OK. I see what you're saying. Oh, Mr. Turner. OK. All right. To obtain a motion for ZVR 2026-0019 for request a 46% front lot coverage. for an existing circular driveway and a single family residential property in lieu of the required 40% front lot coverage.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZVR 2026-0019 to allow 46% front lot coverage for an existing circular driveway and a single family residential typical lot.

I second. The property motion is second. Roll call, please, by the clerk.

By 1C.

Oh, sorry. Section 155 dot, sorry, 301 variance 1 sub C. I second.

Sorry.

No problem.

Roll call, Madam Clerk. Member Pitts? Yes.

Vice Chair Brito? Yes. Member Turner?

Yes.

Chairman Krall? Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you. Motion for ZBR 2026-0020 to allow 46% width of the lot as a required 40% width.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZBR 2026-0020 to allow 46% width of a lot instead of the required 40% width of a lot in an existing circular driveway in a single family residence under section 155.301, variance 1C. I second.

Probably a motion and a second. Roll call, Madam Clerk.

Member Pitts? Yes. Vice Chair Brito? Yes. Member Turner?

Yes.

Chairman Krall?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Motion for ZBR 2026-0021 to allow a 2 foot 4 setback along the segment of the north side property line. It's a required 5 foot existing circular driveway with required 5 foot side setback.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZVR 2026-0021 to allow a two to four setback along the segment. Two foot four. I'm sorry? Two foot four. Two foot four. I'm sorry. Two foot four. Something here. Two foot four segment along the north side of the property line instead of the required five foot four, an existing circular driveway. Okay. in a single-family residential typical lot under section 155.301, variance 1C.

I second. Properly motion and second. Roll call, Madam Clerk.

Member Pitts?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brito?

Yes.

Member Turner?

Yes.

Chairman Krall? Yes. Motion passes.

Motion for ZVR 2026-0022 to allow an existing 6 foot 6 wide walkway along the northern side property line instead of the required 3 foot wide in a single family residential lot.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZVR 2026-0022 to allow an existing 6 foot 6 wide walkway along the segment of the northern side property line instead of the required three-foot-wide single-family residential in a typical lot, section 155.301, variance 1C.

I second. PROBABLY MOTION AND SECOND. ROLL CALL, MADAM CLERK.

MEMBER PITTS?

NO.

VICE CHAIR BRITTO?

NO.

MEMBER TURNER?

YES.

CHAIRMAN CRALL?

YES. MOTION FAILS.

That's the one I just showed you.

Right. It fails. OK. ZVR 2026-0023. To allow 2 foot 6 augmenting to 3 foot 6 setback along the segment of the rear property line is a required 5 foot rear setback.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZBR 2026-0023 to allow a 2 foot 6 augmenting to a 3 foot 6 setback along a segment of the rear property line instead of the required 5 foot rear setback for an existing pool debt in a single family home typical lot under section 155.301 variance subsection 1C.

I second. Probably a motion and second. We'll call Madam Clerk.

Member Pitts? Yes. Vice Chair Brito?

Yes.

Member Turner? Yes. Chairman Krall? Yes. Motion passes.

Motion passes.

Motion was DVR 2026-0024 to allow 2 foot 6 augmented to 2 foot 11 setback.

Along a segment of the southern side property line is the required five foot side setback.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZBR 2026-0024 to allow a two foot six augmenting to a two foot 11 setback along a segment of the southern side property line instead of the required five foot. side setback for an existing pool deck and a single-family residential home under Section 155.301, Variance 1C.

I second. It's been properly motioned and seconded. Roll call, Madam Clerk.

Member Pitts?

Yes.

Vice Chair Brito?

Yes.

I'm sorry?

Yes.

Member Turner?

Yes.

Chairman Krall? Yes. Motion passes.

Motion for ZVR 2026-0025 to allow an existing five foot, reducing to two foot six, wide walkway along the southern side property line. So required three foot wide and a single family residential typical lot.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZBR 2026-0025 to allow an existing five foot, reducing to two foot six wide walkway along a segment of the southern side property line instead of three foot wide in a single family typical lot under section 155.301, variance 1C. I second.

Probably motion is second. Roll call, Madam Clerk.

Member Pitts? Yes. Vice Chair Brito? Yes. Member Turner? Yes. Chairman Krull? Yes. Motion passes.

Mr. Chairman, before you close the case out, do you want to give the property owner the opportunity to augment the six foot sidewalk? Because he has a lot of augmented sidewalks that kind of undulates throughout the property. So I don't know if you want to give them that chance to come back.

I'm going to need to come back. That's what he's saying?

Yes. Well, not right now, because they denied your request.

Figure it out, yeah.

But if they give you that opportunity, you can get put on the agenda without reapplying. So I want to make sure if they want to do that, they have to do that now before we close out.

Would you consider augmenting that 6 foot 6 down to a smaller dimension?

Yes, the only problem I see or challenge, I should say, is towards the end.

Could you bring it up on the screen again, please? It's probably not on the city's pictures.

It's on his picture. His laptop is better. Yeah, because once I remove that walkway, then I'm just walking on grass.

That's not, you're allowed three feet. You're allowed three feet.

Three feet, correct. But it's fixed. The equipment is taken.

I understand that. I understand that. What I'm suggesting that they give you the opportunity is to go back. and work with the staff to figure out a way that you can make most of it three feet and maybe some of it a little bit so you still need a variance and you can keep some of your equipment. Exactly.

Whatever you can do to reduce it is what we're asking for. If it's not being able to be reduced, we will work with you. But we just want to see something other than that six foot six where it's all the way to the fence, basically. That's what we're asking.

Yes.

And you can keep the footprint for the equipment, but the walkway, reduce it.

Yes, yes. I'm going to go back there and measure and see what I can do.

All right.

I appreciate that. Because it's not a continuous six feet. Right. Planters and stuff like that.

So before we close this out, is this one we should table?

Well, the motion failed. So his request for the variance has failed. But you can give him the opportunity to see if he can come up with a solution with staff and bring it back to the next meeting or whenever it's available from staff. Are you available to that, sir?

Yes, I agree. OK. Just this part, Phil. Yes.

That's the only one. You brought seven. You got six. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Yes, I'm just checking my mind. I'm trying to see how do I take it away. I could take it away from the house. Work with them. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, we're not. All right.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

OK. All right.

We still have to move to allow him to work with staff on variance, ZBR, whatever that number is. 2022. Okay, Mr. Pitts.

I can't find it, though. We had to summer off. We had to summer off.

We're a little rusty here. Yeah, we had two months.

OK. Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to allow the property owner to return after consulting with staff on ZVR 2026-0022 for a potential reduction in the 6 foot 6 wide Segment along the north side of the property line Instead of the required three foot required All right second probably motion second roll call madam clerk Yes Yes, yes Please meet with staff to make the reduction.

Thank you. Thank you. I

Next up is ZVR 2026-0026-0027. And Steph, this is the one that, OK, thank you. All right. Thank you. Catherine Granados, agent.

Yes, that's me. Good evening.

Submitted a residential zoning bearer's request to propose the construction of a new driveway for the single family residents located at 10921 Southwest 10th Court in Woodbridge neighborhood, which is zoned multifamily residential. The owner submitted a plan to propose the construction of the new driveway at the property. However, the plan cannot be approved as proposal exceeds the limitation of the city's land development code. The petitioner submitted a plan proposing and requesting ZVR 2026-0026 to allow 43% front lot coverage instead of required 40% front lot coverage. for proposed driveway on the residential single-family property, zero lot. Also, ZBR 2026-0027 to allow 64% width of the lot, instead of required 40% width of the lot for proposed driveway on the residential single-family property, zero lot. The applicants' word that the board's consideration of any reverence request does not preclude the property owner from obtaining all necessary development related approvals or permit. No HO letter has been provided for the request. The applicant, on page 406, submitted requesting a variance to allow the extension of the existing park area driveway at the property. Sure that the person in the home, the applicant's elderly mother, moved into the residence due to the health and mobility needs. As a result, The garage is currently being utilized for the storage of her personal belongings and medical related items, making it unavailable for vehicle parking. Because of this unforeseen circumstance, the existing driveway no longer provides sufficient space for safe and accessible use. The current condition created difficulty for the applicant's mother to comfortably and safely maneuver through the area using her walker and wheelchair. The requested driveway extension is intended to improve accessibility, provide safer passage, and accommodate the household's current needs while maintaining the functionality of the property. The hardship itself is not self-created, as the changes in household circumstances occurred after the purchase of the home and was necessary to provide care. How many cars do you have in the family right now?

I'm Catherine Renatos. If you don't mind me, I'll be translating for them.

Yes.

They have four cars. They have four cars.

OK. Could you have her repeat her name just into the microphone? Thank you. And your name, sir?

Ariel Marino.

OK, thank you. You currently have four cars. I have from the HO Architecture Review Committee. It says, on behalf of the board of directors of Woodbridge at Pima Lakes, they have approved the submitted application for driveway expansion. and shall not exceed the width of the residence and must terminate in alliance with the existing concrete walkway shown on the approved site plan. The east side of the property shall remain grassy and may not be paved or otherwise modified. The new driveway shall match the existing driveway using concrete slab with a 1 and 3 quarter inch expansion joints, matching the existing color, finish, and overall appearance of the existing driveway and the surrounding community. And they're going to address the approval of the aluminum fence, Shelby White, and other colors. But we're looking at just a driveway here right now. Is there anything else, Madam Agent, you'd like to add for the owners to this report?

They just want to take into consideration about her mom. It was not planned. Her father passed away, so they had to move her mom with them right when they purchased the property. the day before. They haven't done anything to the house. They wanted to get permission from the city first as advised by us. She just would like to be able to do her driveway for her mom.

You will understand that currently many households are expanding. Three, sometimes four generations in the same household. We're very considerate of those needs, especially when the elderly parent may need wheelchairs and walkers and increased space. And some neighborhoods in the older portion, they had smaller driveways and so forth when cars were a lot smaller. I'm looking at 64% 0027. The 64% with I'll defer questions to Mr. Turner and then to the rest of the staff. Any questions, Mr. Turner?

With the width expansion, how much additional cars do we plan on fitting to the width?

As in job value cost?

No, the width is being expanded. So are we making this space for one additional car, two additional parking?

Two more cars. Two more cars. Also,

In regards of the planning staff, what's your point of view on this with reduction slightly? I'm thinking where the bend is, if they cut it straight down, that still could park two cars. Yeah, I see it right there.

could still park two cars and that would be within that would definitely reduce that 64 to a large amount have we have that discussion or anything yet or no we we have not that the one question i have here would be the paving as far as the depth goes so i don't know what that measurement is moving back but It certainly looks like to be able to fit a car perpendicularly, it would probably go over the concrete wall, potentially, unless it's a smaller car.

How wide is that area? I really can't see it. It says proposed 32-foot width. Is it 32-foot wide or 32-foot long? Okay.

I believe it's 32 foot wide is what they're asking.

That's approximately three cars there.

The total width of the driveway would be 32 feet 4 inches. By 32 foot 4 inches by what? That is what we do not have on the plans. All right.

Okay. Thank you. Any more questions, Mr. Turner?

I see the driveway of the neighbor is extended and is width. If we go back to the previous picture, wouldn't that be similar?

No.

without it going all the way to the front door? Wouldn't that be the similar usage? Is that approved? What percentage is that? I'm trying to have a good understanding, because I'm thinking that would be within 50%, not that 64%. I'm thinking that's probably

You're talking about the neighbor property?

Yeah, yeah, because the neighbor one is the same driveway, but it doesn't extend all the way to the far right. They're trying to cover the whole front, the whole front yard.

Yeah, I see it there. The property with the pin in it? Yes.

The one to the left of it.

Yeah, the one to the left of it is the neighbor, but the property to the pin, if they... From what I'm seeing, their request is to cover the whole front yard leading all the way to the front door. But if they go similar, it just would be about 50% if they stop. And they still would be able to have two cars from, yeah.

Yeah, she's trying to have four cars.

Four cars, am I correct?

Four cars.

And that's a garage, correct? It's filled with the personal belongings of the mother. No other questions. Mr. Pitts.

Is it a single car garage?

Yeah, single car garage.

So yeah, it's hard to decipher because I see from the photo because it looks like it's squished is what I'll say. But currently, how many vehicles fit in the current driveway setup.

Not including the garage.

Not including the garage.

That's not a garage.

Two cars. So.

Two and tight.

This is kind of a size question, but is this a typical model home in this area, like where the entryway goes?

Yes, somewhere like that.

This is a zero lot.

It's a zero lot.

Yeah. Which doesn't give you much room.

No.

OK, I think I'm good, Mr. Chair. Mr. Burrito.

I have one question. I'm noticing that what is on here now, is that concrete?

On the driveway? Yeah.

So it's not pavers? No. Pavers are not allowed? Yes. In the neighborhood, do you know?

It has to be that kind, OK. That's the only questions I have. In the neighborhood.

As you heard before from other previous applicants, we're trying to reduce the lot coverage. 64% is a little excessive. And you're trying to get four cars in a zero lot line. That's hard to do, very hard to do. And I'm sure there's no parking on the streets. No.

Or no gas parking.

As we've offered to others, and hopefully staff is amiable to try, we're not here to design on the fly here. But we want to work with you and perhaps come to some kind of meeting with staff to try and reduce that 64% down. And consider trying to get four cars in a zero lot line is just very hard to do. And you may have to, you have things stored in the garage, which the city would tell us that's what the garage is for, for the car.

Right.

And that may have to be some consideration, you know, putting things somewhere else and using that one space in the garage for a vehicle. So I'd like to even consider, like we did with others, meeting with staff and trying to come to some reduction And also reconsideration of storing things, using the garage for what it's intended for in the small lot. Because you can see right now all the homes are compact right there, zero lot line. So if you're good with that, we'd like to... Do we table this or... Table this.

If they want, yeah.

If it's agreeable with you, yes.

Yes. Yeah, and there are fine two suggestions with the planning and zoning department.

OK, thank you. Is anyone else from the audience any comments on this variance? No, thank you. I entertain a motion for ZVR 2026-0026 for a request of 42% front lot coverage for a proposed driveway in a single family residential property lot and required 40% front lot coverage. And I don't know, Mr. General Counsel, if these two are tied together, or should we just table both and come back with staff? That's a question for staff. I don't know. Why don't we consider tabling both of them and see what comes out? Yeah, that's probably better. Yeah.

Yeah, I think that's best.

I'd like to entertain a motion for ZVR 2026 and 0-026 and 0027 with a request at 64% lot width and require 40% to both be tabled and for the residents to meet with staff to a possible reduction in coming to a agreement, and also to consider making good use of the garage. Do I have a second? Oh, sorry.

Motion for ZVR-2026-0026 to be tabled at another time after meeting with the staff, and also ZVR-2026-0027 TO BE MET WITH THE STAFF AND TABLE AT ANOTHER TIME.

I SECOND. PROBABLY MOTION SECOND. ROLL CALL, MADAM CLERK.

MEMBER TURNER.

YES.

MEMBER BREEDOM.

YES.

MEMBER PITTS. YES. CHAIRMAN CRUELL. YES. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, GUYS. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

THANK YOU. Hello, guys.

Thank you for your time, by the way.

Thank you. Of course.

When you finish signing in, both of you should state your name for the record.

OK.

Thank you.

I'm giving to Aiden.

I'm giving them the 8 o'clock walking out. They got a quorum without me. You did tell the wife it may be a little bit later tonight, right?

Oh, I told her.

OK. Because you've been away for a while, and she's getting comfortable with these meetings. OK. State your name, please.

Yeah. So my name is Eduardo. I'll be his translator. And he's the property owner.

All right. Thank you.

My name is . OK.

The property owner submitted residential zoning variance request to legalize the construction of a driveway for the single-family residence located 17231 Southwest 12th Street in the Silver Lakes neighborhood, which is on planned unit development. The guidelines do not address driveways nor front lot coverage. On February 11, 2025, code compliance cited the property for work done without a building permit. Code case number 250200452. March 12, 2025, the owner submitted building print application RX25-02442 for the driveway of the property. However, the existing driveway cannot be approved as it exceeds the limitations of the city land development code. ZVR 2026-0028 is to allow 46% front lot coverage instead of required 40% front lot coverage for proposed circular driveway on a residential single property. The owner submitted on page 406. This variance request is submitted following previous building permit application. that was denied in March 2025 and September 2025. The owners requesting an after-the-fact variance from the existing extended driveway with pavers. The driveway extension and pavers were constructed entirely within the subject property and did not extend toward the encroaching neighboring properties. The improvement is to provide safe and adequate parking and to prevent vehicles from parking on the unpaved areas. The existing conditions does not create drainage, safety, or visible issues and is consistent with the similar driveways improvement in the neighborhood. Approval of this variance alleviated practical hardship and allowed the property to remain maintained in compliance. Is there anything, Mr. Marlowe, that you'd like to add? Rolando, would you like to add to this?

It needs to be closer to the mic, please.

OK, sir, we still cannot hear you at all. A little louder, please. OK.

So he's saying the accessibility to go in and out of the house and also for the appearance of the house. There's a couple of homes in the neighborhood that have the same idea that he wants to do. Also, basically, when... it's like a safety concern when they're backing out and FedEx or UPS is parked right outside, the roads are very narrow. So it's just one car and one car in. So whenever UPS or the trucks are parked out there, it's very hard to see what's coming from one side because the main entrance, there's only one entrance and then it's through the same exit as well.

Okay.

Any questions, Mr. Turner?

No questions.

Mr. Pitts?

So we have a few different diagrams here. I'm assuming the... And when we read the statement, it looked like a permit was applied for twice for the... For the circular driveway? There's a portion that is in front of the garage. The diagram's on the screen. So is the current driveway plan is what was originally applied for? And I'm assuming to the left is what was created after the permit was?

Staff has comments.

Go ahead.

Yes, the survey dated 4-30-26. That is what's currently existing. That is what was... They're now cutting it back to be the circular driveway under the driveway plan on this slide.

Oh, okay. That clarifies for me. I was... I thought it was originally the driveway plan was approved on the, and the 430 survey was what was realized. But okay, I understand now. No further questions.

Mr. Brito.

No questions.

How many cars are involved in the family? I don't think I see.

Three cars. Three cars, yeah.

And he parked in the garage?

Sometimes he'll park his car there, especially when he washes it and never wants to rain like an hour after. Okay.

Has this been constructed already, or is it... Yeah, on the driveway plant. Has this been constructed? Yes. With the circle?

It has not been constructed. OK.

I'd like to, we have a requirement of 40%. It has not been done. It's not like it can't be modified. I'd like to consider modifying it down to the required 40%.

So you're proposing 40%? As required. As required. OK. That's OK. Thank you.

Well, he won't need a variance if he's going to do what the code requires. So does he want to not ask for this and just do what the code requires, otherwise he's just Spend some time that he didn't need to spend if that's what he's going to do, just so he understands what that means.

If you go to 40%, you don't have to have a variance. You have to reduce it just 6%, which is you've got plenty of room there.

Yeah, he said he'll reduce and readjust it as needed.

OK. And you will apply, you make that change on your application for your building permit.

So I would suggest you table it just so if he needs 1% or 2%, I don't think staff has the administrative authority to do that. So just in case we can't get it down to workable.

Sure. Thank you, General Counsel. Thank you. I'd like to offer a motion to table ZVR 2026-0028 so that the owner can meet, can reduce. the requirement down to the 40%. And we'll keep this open so that in case there are some other issues, you can always come back. But I table this until further meetings with the building department. I second. I can't make the motion.

Mr. Pitts? I'm so sorry. I need the discussion. I thought we was going to just present it and say yea or nay. And then he could go back to the staff with a note. I thought that was it.

We want to keep this open just in case. There's an issue. Just in case. OK. We're tabling it. It's open until he gets a permit, which he may not . OK, cool. All right.

So motion for ZVR-2026-0028. to be tabled and remain open upon review of owner and staff for the 46 variants to the required 40%.

I second.

Motion and second. We'll call Madam Clerk.

Member Turner?

Yes.

Member Pitts? Yes. Vice Chair Brito?

Yes.

Chairman Krall?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you. We appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you for your cooperation.

General Counsel, you said there's a... Well, there's two things.

One is the next meeting got changed from... Thursday to Wednesday to accommodate a change in schedule for the city commission is my understanding. And then there's elections for officers, chair and vice chair tonight. So if you want to go through the election process, we'll do the chair first, and then we'll do vice chair. If you want to nominate, re-nominate the current chair or someone else, now's the opportunity to do that.

GENE MCKOWNSELL- General Counsel, will you control that election?

Yeah, we're going to go ahead and get to it. GENE MCKOWNSELL- OK. Go ahead, General Counsel. Is there any nominations for chair?

I would like to nominate current chair Kroll, please.

I second. All right. Any other nominations? Hearing none. Was that? Oh. Oh. Oh, OK. I thought you was trying to make sure. Nobody in the audience. All right. So we got a nomination, and we got a second to the nomination. Do we have a third? No, don't do that. I'm just teasing. Let's just do a.

You can do an I. Yeah, I know.

All in favor? Aye. All right, unanimous. Let's do vice chair. Any nominations for vice chair?

I would like to nominate vice chair Greedo.

OK. Any other nominations for vice chair? Seeing none, all in favor?

Can we get a second?

Can we get a second? All right, we got a second. Second, second. Mr. Turner, all in favor? Aye. Aye. All right, congratulations, gentlemen.

Thank you very much. And thank you all for your participation. Thank you for your support.

It gets a little crazy. That's it, sir.

That's all I have. The meeting, you said, is what date again? And what about the city commission? Do they meet the same time?

No, they're meeting the Thursday.

Ah, okay. So we're switching. Switching days. Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you, staff.

Thank you. Thank you, staff. Pleasure. All right.

Motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn.

Oh, yeah.

Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Aye. I think it started already.