##VIDEO ID:iHxZ_qZSEgw## [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] all [Music] e uh please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all I now call I now call to order this um meeting of the board of zoning adjustments for Bard County uh dated uh let's see December 18th and it is now 1:30 um we have a few um staff announcements number one uh we have a new member uh Miss Jennifer Ms Jennifer Clemens she is uh representing District Two uh today we have an uh excused absence with Mr Steven Holberg uh within District 3 but with four members here we do have a quorum so with that announced will ask for our um Mr uh bod could you please read the function of the board of zoning adjustments yes Mr chairman the board of adjustment is a quasi judicial body established by the board of County Commissioners under chapter 62 Article 2 Division 4 of Bard county code the board of adjustment is empowered to hear a request for variances to the zoning regulation and sign regulation in chapter 62 article six and article 9 pursuant to Florida rules of app pellet procedure any person or persons jointly or severally agreed by any decision of the board of adjustment May within 30 days after the date the order is signed apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief Mr chairman you have four items on your agenda today thank you Mr bod uh could our vice chair and uh representative from district one miss Mard uh please read the uh second reading okay undo hardship a variance may be granted when it will not be contrary to the public interest and where owning to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in unnecessary and undue hardship the term undo hardship has a specific legal definition in this context and essentially means that without the requested variance the applicant will have no reasonable use of the subject property under existing development regulations personal medical reasons shall not be considered as grounds for establishing undue hardship sufficient to qualify an applicant for variance economic reasons may be considered only in instances where the land owner cannot yield a reasonable use and or a reasonable return under the existing Land Development regulations the applicant must answer variance hardship worksheet with six questions the board of adjustments will discuss these questions today with each applicant who has requested a variance thank you Miss Mard um I will now address the board members the applicants and our audience regarding the board procedures for today's proceedings the board of zoning adustment as a quasi judicial board with members appointed by The Bard County Board of Commissioners will utilize Robert's Rules of orders to conduct his proceedings the chair is asking all board members not to ask questions while the applicants are making their initial presentations once the applicants have completed their presentation we will begin board questioning with the board member who represents the applicants District when concluded questioning is open to the full board the chair will recognize each board member in turn once all board members have completed their questioning we will then open the floor to the audience may be here to speak concerning the applicant's application anyone from the audience wishing to speak will be given the opportunity to address the board once and only once um so be complete and concise if you're coming forward to um speak at the conclusion of public comment the applicant will be given additional time for rebuttal as well as to present their final comments once completed no further comment will be heard from the applicant for the public the action will move to this side of the bar and the board will uh make its considerations and uh and votes we will not use a timer for the meeting instead we are asking each speaker to be concise in what they have to say it is important that you stay on subject and avoid information that is not relevant I don't want to hear about who said who to what just stick with the facts uh all persons speaking must Prov provide their name and address for the public record those wishing not to verbally State their address may ask the clerk at the podium for an address card please fill it out and return it to the clerk um are there any questions regarding these procedures from the board are there any questions proceed uh related to these procedures from the applicants are there any questions from any other uh persons in the audience seeing none uh we will proceed to uh the next item which is the um uh approval of last month's uh meeting minutes board members do you have any edits to the uh meeting minutes which were distributed none none seeing none um I'll ask for a motion to approve the meeting minutes I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes okay second all right we have a motion by U Dr Bass and a second by Miss Mard to accept the uh meeting minutes as written all in favor say I I any opposed okay meeting minutes are approved Mr bod can we have our first applicant please yes item H1 Timothy Scott Ganon and Denise Irene Ganon request variance of chapter 62 article 6 bvar county code as follows section 62-1 1340 5B to permit a variance of 6.3 ft from the required 7.5 ft Southwest side setback for an accessory structure in an ru-1 d11 single family residential zoning classification and this is variance application 24v 000045 and located at tax account number 241 7445 okay uh name and address for the record bouard in Florida and let's do this together do you swear that the testimony you're giving today is is the truth yes yes okay uh floor is yours so we're here to legitimize a shed on the side of our house we purchased a shed that's under 100 square ft which means there's no permit required correct me if I'm wrong Paul but there's no permit required so we didn't know that it had to be within the setbacks because we didn't have to go for a permit after sitting through many of these hearings we learned that it needs to follow the same setbacks so we're here to legitimize a code enforcement violation um The Bard county has approved our shed to where it is right now we've had the Vaca easement all the utilities have approved that um there's really no other place to put it on our property it's on the side as you can see on the shed I mean on the survey it's 72 square feet it is um it doesn't block anyone's views it's on the side of our house and there's really no storage in the older homes in Diana Shores and this is really the only place that we have to store our items so we're requesting to legitimize this I'd like the uh board to know that this item was heard uh on uh October 16th 2024 and it was denied they have moved the shed to be a tenth further into from the setback so this was heard and it's being brought up with a different setback thank you um Miss Clemens it arises in District Two uh would you like me to begin the questioning in your your stad um yes so we heard this before you have moved at 10 ft in in in that move no did one10 oh 1110 0 okay and now it meets the does it now meet the setback yes well you're asking we're still asking for the variance for the Vari but we couldn't ask for the same exact variance so we had to move it slightly okay now my question from before was access for emergency people to get into the the back area if something goes wrong uh and you you're required to be 5 ft off the house for the a 5ot corridor minimum yes all right that meets handicap M standard so I guess that's okay um I'll suspend any more questioning M Clemens do you have anything to ask blockage for neighbors or no it's on the side of our house you can see it on the survey if we were to move it anywhere else we would block their view so that's why it's up it's behind our fence right on the side of the house it's on the side of their house too so it doesn't block any Waterfront view or anything thing and there's a fence fully around the property correct yes ma'am I don't have any other questions okay uh any other board member no no okay um so if you could uh step aside please actually I do have one other question what was the what was the reason it was denied last time just out of curiosity CU I don't wasn't we had brought three things we didn't get the reason why it was a 2 two vote but we had multiple variances in one package and I think it kind of all got lost and it was a 2 two vote that day so there wasn't a majority so we had we never got we never got the reason why it was why it was denied yeah I don't know why but the other two variants requests were granted everything was denied that day so we've been this is the only thing you're bringing back for now for now if I may Mr chair I I think that during this discussion that you as a board had some concerns about them the access for emergencies on that side of the house mhm which now you're telling me you have a 5 foot oh yes yeah and no Gates or anything that block access to the front street where the ambulances or no whatever would come up gurny going through no okay that was a concern about adequate access I think um just as a point the other side is also somewhat blocked with some um actually it's wide open as well it has a Bree we had we had the pictures and everything but there was a concern that there wouldn't be adequate access to the back so um but this okay well that answers my question okay all right no other questions now you may stuff as is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this application seeing [Music] none um the only thing I had to follow up with is again we went for the vactive easement but our County approved that so the E they had no problems with any of that so that's all been passed already okay thank you oh okay all right uh um this application arises in uh District 2 so miss Clemens you have the uh option of uh offering a motion to approve or disapprove I have no reason to not approve the variance well no we're offering a I make a motion to approve the variance as depicted on as depicted on the survey provided by the applicant with the revision date of 419 2024 thanks for all right do we have a second a second okay so we have a motion can you make sure you turn on your microphone and speak into we can can you um for the record can you state that motion again we were trying to with the microphone give me that okay I make a motion to approve uh as depicted on the survey the I make a motion to approve the variance as depicted on the survey provided by the applicant with the revision date of 419 2024 a second okay so we have a motion by m Clemens we have a second by Miss Mard Miss Mard um do we have any board discussion no no well in that case you've forced me to read the six questions as part of our uh procedure we need to read into the record these six questions that you the applicants have uh have have uh responded to not going to read the responses but I will read the questions and these are the things that our board members consider as part of their vote so that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other lands structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands buildings or structures in The Identical zoning classification the literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in The Identical zoning classification under the provision of this chapter and will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant uh that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of land building or structure that the granting of the variants will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such variants will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare with those six U considerations in mind I will call the vote uh the vote is uh or the motion is to approve the application all those in favor say say I I I any opposed it passes 4 to zero your application is approved thank you for your time okay Mr bod could we have the next applicant please yes item H2 the Vieira company request variance of chapter 62 article 6 Bard county code section 62- 15117 to permit a variance of 400% from the allowed 25% 100% of the units of the total number of units in a motel or hotel to contain kitchen facilities and a a PUD planned unit development zoning classification this is application number 2 24v 0046 located at tax account number 301 9268 in District 4 thank you um name and address for the record please my name is Hassan Kamal with BSE consultants for acting as the applicant for the project okay address is 312 South Harbor City Boulevard Melbourne Florida 32901 okay you can adjust that microphone to whatever height makes it more convenient for you thank you um uh do you swear that the testimony you're giving today is the truth I do okay please thank you um our application here today is for a variance request reest for a uh proposed Hotel use located on Town Center Drive uh just west of Lake Andrew just immediately south of here across from the Avenue shopping center I do have some exhibits I'd like to pass out they're similar to what was in your package but there's a couple of additional uh bits of information that I want to share with you okay how many copies do you have with you I have I think I have eight okay one needs to go to staff thank you so the first page of the application was in your staff report it's just a Lo site plan showing where the proposed Hotel would reside uh again uh that's adjacent to two existing facilities just located west of Lake Andrew Drive uh the second page is uh a floor plan showing the the units and uh showing the uh efficiency or kitchenet uses proposed and that the uses are shown there is duplicated throughout because what we're requesting is that and this is the brand this is a residence in uh so all the units are contain small small kit kitchenet areas and they're intended for Extended Stay and the reason why this hotel is coming here is because the way have Vier is developed where we have the UA facility we have the regional park we have the government center and uh residence in is a Hilton brand so it's it's that's their brand they do 100% efficiency units and they've looked at this market and said this is a great place form because of the uses that exist within proximity to the site um and then the third page is just a an overall floor plan that shows how those units sit and the last page I have is just kind of a a location map and the location map and an aerial photograph basically uh document uh the site location the proximity to all those features and attractions that I mentioned earlier such as the UA facility uh the regional park all the offices and government centers here what's interesting about the map too it also points out two adjacent uh or or nearby hotels that are extended stay hotels uh the home with two Suites which is actually another Hilton brand which was developed several years ago by the same applicant that's doing this is 100% extended stay hotel and then the hood Suites uh further up on the corner of Lake Andrew Drive and and Parada is an extended stay hotel uh both of those projects are in the exact same so zoning classification de within the central VR PUD are subject to the same regulations um I don't know why but they were not required to obtain uh a variance uh and you know we have had conversations with staff about the applicability of this code and whether it's being interpreted or applied correctly to this site um and that's maybe a discussion for later on but the point that we want to make today is that this application uh is suitable for the site it's driven by market uses there's no adverse effects to adjacent properties there's nobody harmed by it um and we would request the board's consideration and approval of the application uh as submitted okay um your application arises in District uh four which is uh rep our representative is Dr Bass and you have the floor for questions yes I I just wanted to make sure I'm looking at this correctly but uh the when I'm looking at this that this is the Fairfield hotel right or the Fairfield I'm sorry sorry the the parcel and yellow is theose part right and then this is the Fairfield hotel yeah that's what I thought yes okay okay uh this area is hotels as you said uh it's on Lake Andrew it's across from the mall you're not going to be interfering with any homes or any living residences and the residence in as you said does have uh the a kitchenet available to the people that's one of the purposes people stay there so U be I don't have any questions I'm familiar with this area and I'm familiar with the with the residents in so uh it's quite clear to me I have no question anybody else have any questions questions I do have a question it's probably going to be a combination of un staff um what is the basis of the 25% of the unit is it a fire code is it uh it was it was a section ago that was added to limit the full-time residence in the tourist related zoning District that's really the why so so the idea was that that you had to have a larger unit correct tu2 is is a traditional tourist related zoning district and um where where it wasn't appropriate to have long-term residents in a tourist area because of the light the noise and you know and the um impacts that are created from that use so so the idea that the kitchen had could only occupy a certain amount was to correct that that it remained the primary use was a motel not in in this case is a full-time residence okay okay and that's you know okay yeah that's U you know what's the basis of 25% and M Clemens has a question also that changed prior to microphone no so as Mr um Kamal had mentioned there are two other um residents in that have kitchens unfortunately staff um made mistakes in in Prior review of those um and Mr U um Hassan has been notified of that so we made a mistake in that unfortunately you know we caught it this time and and this is the remedy to do that the uh staff doesn't see any issue with it it's just one of the code requirements that when you in this zoning classification where you have V1 we use the tu2 zoning standards and that's where that is coming into the 25% okay just little background um okay well that's all the questions I have does anyone else have a question another question no could you just step aside let me ask the audience um is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in favor or against this application seeing none any final before we deliberate sorry any final uh anything before we deliberate uh no I I think we've uh outlined uh and met all the uh criteria in the uh variance worksheet um and we course the board's consideration favorable uh action on on our request okay thank you all right well uh this arises in your District Dr Bass so what I just have one question for Mr boty uh what's I can't read it on the drawings what's the revision and the date on this for the drawing m you're good I can't yeah I can't I can't read that either if I can if I'm reading this correctly andan let me know if if you um agree I'm I'm reading this is 9164 sounds good that's the date the revision of the survey that's yes that's the date on the survey oh okay well go ahead I have nothing else to ask uh we're okay all right great uh I make a motion to approve the variance as depicted in the survey uh dated plan that's in this yeah so please okay I make a motion to approve the variance as depicted in the site plan dated 9624 thank you do we have a second a second okay so we have a motion to approve by uh Dr Bass and we have a second by m Mard um any discussion no okay um all right having no discussion then I will read the six criteria all right that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to this chapter and will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant that the variance granted is the minimum variance that that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building or structure that granting the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such use variants will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare with those six criteria in mind I will call the vote all in favor say I I I any opposed then the motion passes unanimously 4 to zero and the application is approved thank you okay Mr bod may we have the next applicant please yes item H3 William Simon request variance of chapter 62 article six Bard county code as follows variance number one section 62-3 415a to permit a variance of 1.9 ft from the required 20 ft front setback for the principal structure variance number two section 62- 1341 5B to permit a variance of 4.1 ft from the required 7 .5 ft Side West setback for an accessory structure in an ru- 1-9 single family residential zoning classification and this is located variance application is 24v 0047 location is tax count number 24088 68 and District 1 okay I see our applicant is coming come forward already could I have your name and address for the records there uh William Simmons could you speak clearly in microphone William Simmons 655 June Drive Co okay U you swear the testimony you're giving us today is the truth yes sir okay you can adjust the microphone a little closer it makes you more comfortable so uh I bought this home 3 years ago with a VA loan uh I recently applied for permit to have a dock built the dock Builder required uh me to have a newer survey done the one that was provided at the time that I bought the home was too old they wanted one 90 days or newer uh ended up paying for two different surveys to get done and it was brought to my attention that I have two existing issues the ones you just described um I bought the house this way the structures were already there um the VA inspector never flagged anything is is having an issue so I'm asking for a variance for those two items um and the shed is really the the big issue with me because I'm a mechanic by trade I have tons of equipment and tools this house doesn't have a garage I left a home that did this shed provided the the protection that I need for that equipment um so I guess I'm at your mercy to approve or [Music] deny okay um your application arises in District uh one which is uh represented by uh M Mard and you have the floor for questions good afternoon how you doing so we're here today because you purchased a home three years ago yes ma'am doc built two Z two surveys were done correct yeah I had to pay for two because the first one had some issues okay and because you don't have a garage that's why you're standing before us today as well correct yes ma'am to protect your shed and your tools okay so looking at your I drove past your home one question is that I see you have a neighbor to the right side of you correct basic oh that's the yes on yeah the one that's really next door to me yes okay and that won't be objecting they view or anything like that no me me and him get along really really well as a matter of fact the space between the shed and the fence I let him plant his garden okay so yeah perfect okay and the second one was for I believe it's the front porch correct and I don't know when any of these structures were built my neighbor's been there 20 years years and he told me that they've both been there a long time so right so tell me about your front porch uh they I guess when the first survey was done they measured from the house the porch was there but they measured from the house to the easement and I think that's where they made the mistake because the second guy that did the survey his measurement showed from the post which is a few feet out from the house he measured from the post to the easement and that's when it got flagged okay okay I have no other questions thank you yes ma'am question any any other I have none oh M question all right um I no I don't have any questions I need to just do a procedure if you just step aside is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in favor or against this application uh seeing none please return um final comments um yeah uh the other thing going on the initial thing that happened I bought the house because the wife wanted the house I didn't really want the house I didn't have a boat dock she said buy me the house I'll get you the boat dog so this is where we're at this all came about from a a permit for a boat dog when all this got discovered she's got $30,000 in a loan she's been paying five months now to pay for this dock she's making payments on this and I can't have a dock until this is resolved so all of us married people understand your pay she's not real happy with me right now but I see what we can do right thank you okay uh M mord you have the floor for making a motion well I like to make a motion to approve this variance variance with the S on the N because it's two with this and I want to um approve it it's depicted on a survey provided by the applicant with the date of 102 24 okay do we have a second to that I'll second that okay we have a motion by uh Miss Mard second by Dr Bass to approve this applic do we have any discussion no no the only common I have is it's it's really out in the open there if he's good with the neighbor then I don't see any real harm to the neighborhood on this at all um so with no further discussion I'll read the six considerations that you're all going to keep in mind as you make your vote and those are yeah that special circumstances and conditions exist which are not applicable to other lands structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the app the actions of the applicant the granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands buildings or structures in The Identical zoning classification the literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in The Identical zoning classification under the Privileges under the provisions of this chapter and will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building or structure that the granting of the variant will be in harmony with the General intent and purpose of this chapter and that such use variants will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare uh with those six uh criteria in mind I will call the vote all in favor of approving the application say I I any opposed the application is approved 4 to zero and your uh variance is also approved no recess no recess okay uh Mr bod may we have the next applicant please yes item number H4 this item was continued from the November 20th boa meeting and the vote was 22 it was recommended that they come back till they have a uh majority but the uh item is John beom and Lisa M beom request variance of chapter 62 article 6 bouard county code as follows variance number one section 62- 2118 D2 to permit a variance of 7.5 ft from the required 7.5 ft from the required side South setb for a dock and a watercraft and variance number two section 62- 2118 D2 to permit a variance of 7.5 ft from the required side Northeast set back for a dock and a watercraft in an ru-1 d11 single family residential zoning classification and this is application is 24v 000044 located at tax account number 2418 448 and District 2 okay thank you um I want to do a little bit of housekeeping here it appears that you have that there are audience members here to speak either in favor or against the application is is my assumption correct would you raise your hand if you intend to speak for the application okay would you raise your hand okay uh would you raise your hand if you intend to speak against the application against four okay um that's not too bad I was looking to ask you to consolidate to one speaker for um but it's appears you all already have just one one speaker so we'll move on um welcome back thank you Mr chairman uh good I I got to go through the same thing you're you're an attorney right that's correct okay so just name an address for the repres uh my name is Cliff rer my business address is 2101 Waverly Place Melbourne Florida I'm an attorney with the law firm of whitebird and we represent the applicant John and Lisa beom okay as an officer of the Court I'll knock where you in thank you you're under those bar regulation thank you and and with me today I have uh the applicants uh John and Lisa beom we also have the uh doc Builder um ryel buriel who is with us as well today um and I know that we heard this last time and so um we do have the PowerPoint and I I will go through the item again for the benefit of Miss Clemens who was not here last time um as you may recall when we left when we last visited with you um we had gone through the presentation um we could not get a any consensus vote um on the matter and so we requested that the matter be tabled or continued to this meeting so that we could have the D2 representative appointed we now have that um and so uh with the understanding that Miss Clemens has not seen this presentation before we will go through the presentation again just for the benefit of everyone but I'll try to be as brief as possible um for for the benefit of the members that have already heard the matter um at the outset however um there are a couple of matters that I'd just like to address right before we uh go into the presentation which is we do have uh some letters of support we had them at the last meeting and I just want to uh uh make sure for the record that we have noted uh the letters of support that we have at the last meeting U we had submitted two letters of report one from Melissa and Richard uh are Rio and they are the owners of 325 Artemis Boulevard which is on the east side of the neighboring property to the subject property um and I can identify those properties to you on a map if you would like um but they're on the east side of the of the property that is immediately adjacent to the east of of the subject property um we also have letters of support from Thomas F Gins and Maria samud who are the neighbors directly on the west southwest side of the subject property um so they were also in um uh favor and the from the Aros letter I could just read that it says uh to whom it may concern the Rio Family Trust has no issues with the variants for the property at 305 emis we have no issues with the dock and watercraft on this property our property is located at 325 Artemis within 2200 ft of this request and we have no issues with the request um the Fagan and samuda letter states to whom it may concern please accept this as our written consent and support in favor of the above stated variants we fully support the beom and do not oppose any aspect of this proposed variance um I assume that those two letters are in the record is that correct or would you like me to resubmit them staff I believe that those um letters and support are in in the packet okay so those are the two that are in the ones that um we have additional letters of support that have not that are not in your packet um there is a letter from the owner of 1430 cus which is located to the west of the subject property um that is uh J W and Charlene CRC um their letter States and and I have copies as well uh we are writing this letter in support of John and Lisa beom's request for a variance to rebuild their dock we feel it would only be fair to them as they followed all the specs set forth by the county and the building permit they were issued when the dock was complete the county inspected and signed off on the permit we know that you will take all information into consideration and hope you will find in favor of the variance for the beom so that is from 1430 cus Court um also a letter from Pat Wy and Pat Wy is from it was within the same subdivision 460 Diana Boulevard they are a few streets to the North or a few blocks to the north it's in the it's in the Diana Shore subdivision um Pat Wy states to whom it may concern I'm writing to provide my support of the variance requested request submitted by John and Lisa beom at 305 Artemis Boulevard merid Island Florida 32953 as an experienced Boer after reviewing the subject proper I do not agree there is a navigational obstruction I support the approval of this request um we also have a letter from Brian reinert and they are Lo Brian reinert's address is 1380 cus court that is also on the Block to the west of the subject property um on the same Canal this property is located on the same Canal it says Dear Board of County dear Bard County Board of adjustment members I am writing to to express support for the approval of the variants requested by John and Lisa beom at 305 emis Boulevard Meritt Island as I indicated in my in-person remarks at the November 20th Board of adjustments meeting and reiterating now the piling in question as exists today does not pose a navigational Hazard to Mr Guthrie in any way the variance request before you today if approved will in no way impede Mr guth's ability to access his dock or inhibit his ability to enjoy the Indian River Lagoon via his boat jet ski I consider myself a friend to both John and Lisa beom and Tom Guthrie before attending the November boa meeting after witnessing Mr guth's attorney attacked the Integrity of both the beom and the Marine contractor is clear to me that this opposition has nothing to do with Mr guth's claim of issues in navigating in or out of his Dock and anything to do with the animosity against the beom oh and everything to do with the animosity against the beom thank you for your time and support that in the end and you thank you for your time and support and hope that in the end you approve this request for a variance that is Brian Reiner um also Tracy Reiner same address 1380 CPS courts wres deer Board of adjustment members thank you for your consideration for a variance approval for leis Lisa and John beom residing at 305 emis Boulevard I am writing to express my support for approval I will be out of town for the December meeting so I'm writing to you so that my voice will be heard at the last meeting on November 20th there were 11 neighbors myself included of John and Lisa that attended the meeting in person as well as a couple of letters from others all who were in favor of all all in favor for the variance the meeting was so important that many took off of work to attend and support the boms since there were so many people at the meeting we were asked to only pick a couple people who would speak for the group wish we all got up got to speak and say our names on on record to support the beom's variance request and also the letters were read out loud for the recording Mr Guthrie has plenty of room to navigate and maneuver his boat to back out and to pull in it is apparent by both Mr Guthrie and his attorney statements that this isn't about the piling but rather something personal I have known Lisa and John to be honest neighbors who Liv their lives with integrity and kindness please approve this variance to allow them to enjoy their waterfront property peacefully thank for your thank you for your time Tracy Reiner and those are the letters of support that we have I will submit those to staff can I get a copies of those letters I'm giving them to you right now so Mr chair we're going to make copies of those we're going to have a copy for you okay and then we'll we will give copies to posing Council as well let me pull the board do you need copies of those or the the readouts are fine I think yeah all right with that out of the way a couple of points that I just wanted to hit on also um before I go into the main presentation and one of those would be I want to show you a copy of an aerial photo that was pulled from the Department of Transportation um aerial site A+ website this is the Florida Department of uh Transportation A+ uh aerial website from 1980 um do you mind if I approach I have eight copies should I give to staff do you want the copies uted to you the staff will yes I'll give one to council got enough paper on the desk thank you thank you this is actually very similar to what's in the packet that's not in our PowerPoint presentation but I will be referencing it as we go of the packet say that again it's on the back of the packet that yeah interestingly enough that's the current picture today on the back of the packet and that's 1980 which is what the aerial is which demonstrates exactly my point that I'm going to get to in about one minute um 40 years and the situation really hasn't changed um but we'll I digress for a second um my apologies for inter well you help me to make the point I was trying to make um and I wanted to talk a little bit about the lot history as well there were certain things that were said at the last meeting particularly by um Mr Guth his attorney who were an objection um about the fact that um the lot was in some way like a substandard lot or um um was not paid for by full market value or didn't have fair market value or or or didn't carry with it the right of entitlement of of Waterfront use um and that's just not accurate um that as demonstrated in the aerial the property has been used for Waterfront for over 40 years um of a slip of similar size to what is being requested in the current application um at the time that our uh clients purchased the property they paid uh fair market value for the property um in fact the fair market value of the current property is listed on the property prer uh website the market value at 5 5 4,890 this was listed currently on The Bard County property praisers website Mr guth's property is loc is listed at $575 uh $610 so really not that much different um in addition to that the boms paid far more than market value for their property and that they paid $635,000 for their property in 2021 um so they did not pay a reduced price for this property it was not marketed below fair market value um and there was always an expectation of Waterfront use with this property in fact at the time that the boms purchased the property there was the existing lift which supported the same siiz boat of what the variance application that we're asking for today would support so uh any claim that there was some uh expectation of the boms in purchasing their property that they wouldn't have Waterfront use is just inaccurate and contrary to what the facts and the history show um so just to kind of go and and I promise I'll go as quickly as I can um through our PowerPoint presentation if I can get that back up on the screen um so what we're asking for today and and I just can't reiterate this enough is is to try to solve a problem that exists we we the backrooms are trying to solve a problem that really didn't arise through their own doing it's just a problem that they're now faced with that they have to come back and try to cure um we believe that what we're asking for today will cure that problem um the problem is is that the current Dock and lift serving the subject property is over the projected lot line by approximately 2 and 1 half ft there's a reason for that we'll talk about that but the co what the code provides is that a dock and a lift structure in a boat can be no closer than 7 1/2 ft to the side property line as projected out into the Waterway so um so on this lot and this is the plan of what is being proposed this is not what's there currently but this is what we are proposing to do um right now we have a post that is over and if you see the Triangular line on this diagram is the building envelope in which the the owner has to work with to be able to get to the extended lot line so those the triangular pieces that lot lines as extended and you'll see that the plan uses every bit of available space that it can to get the boat the existing boat and reconfigure the lift so that it fits within the triangle however we can't be 7 and 1/2 ft from that and so we need a 7 and 1/2 ft variance to get within the triangle right now we're over but we're trying to get back inside the triangle we'll I'll talk about it a little bit in a few minutes but this is exactly the same type of variance that has been granted by this board of adjustment in this same subdivision for other lots that are similarly situated so all the boms are asking for is the exact same variance that has been granted by this board previously um including at the last meeting I'll add this is a copy of the plat for the subject property so you can see the boms own lot 81 and part of lot 80 a sliver of lot 80 uh um and so their Frontage the frontage of lot 81 is 28.2 three Mr Guthrie who lives uh to the east of the subject property who is an objection lot 82 has approximately 138 ft of Frontage um so the boms have a limited Frontage based on the fact this's a pi-shaped lot um I will note that at the last variance hearing um again variance 24 V 000037 was a corner lot on merid island literally identically similarly situated to this lot it looks identical to this lot and for that property this board granted a 7 and 1/2t variance from the side lot lines for that property um so I understand that the board's not bound by its prior uh actions and that every variance is to be looked at on its own however the board just did that at the last meeting on a similarly situated a lot this is what the current aerial shows this is a current photo of what's there the what you'll note is that the um the lift has a cover on it and so what you see there it's not that the dock takes the full length of the property it's just that that's the cover covering up the pilings and that's just an Arial to kind of give you a a kind of a orientation of how the property is situated today in this subdivision in the D anore subdivision this is a common problem um the the the subdivision was built this way one block to the east this is the situation you have lots Corner lots and um docks that are protruding beyond the lot lines as extended by the code definition um that's one block to the east this is two blocks to the east same exact problem um same exact subdivision this is one block to the West exactly the same and if you'll note um particularly with regard to the corner lots you'll see that this is not a substandard lift size this is a fairly larger boat size or a normal residential boat size there is no expectation that those boats on Corner lots are going to be smaller in the Dian Shore subdivision um this is one block to the north exactly the same problem um now if you go back and look at the history of this site and this is interesting because this is a aerial that was taken right from the property appraisers website from 2007 and in 2007 you'll note that there was a lift that this dock not only had a lift on it or this property not only had a lift on it but it also had a wraparound dock on it um and it and it was that way for quite some time because if you look at the 1980 aerial you'll see that it actually looks like it's more than just the lift that's on the aerial it's not quite so easy to see but you can see that it looks like there's more of a wraparound dock there than just the lift um but we're we're going to show you other pictures as well but this is what it looked like back in 2007 it had been that way for quite some time this is what the property looked like in 2012 uh this is a again another aerial website shot um taken directly from the property producers website um Mr Guthrie purchased his property uh January 17th of 2012 this is what the property would have looked like when Mr Guthrie purchased his property so Mr Guthrie would have understood that there was not only a lift there and you can see that you can see the lift in the AAL of the picture but also the wraparound dock was there as well and that's what it looked like in 2012 at some time after 2012 the wraparound dock was taken away and we were left with just the lift um and this is what the property looked like in 2021 when the beom purchased their property now the suggestion is that the boms knew that they wouldn't be able to put a a dock a a normal residential boat on their property however this lift would have supported a 22-ft boat which is a reasonable residential boat that the boms are asking to keep on their subject property um it's literally that's how the property was when they purchased the property so they had every expectation that they had Waterfront use and that they could dock their boat on the subject property and not only that I might add but Mr Guth who's now in objection to this to what's being requested would have lived with either that lift or the wraparound dock for about n years before the OR at the time that this aerial was taken so you know for Mr Guth and and that dock would have likely been non-conforming to the setbacks as well um it probably would have been over the line um and would have been deemed non-conforming by the county at that time time um but that's that's how that's the condition that the property was in for 9 years uh uh prior to the change that has occurred that Mr Guth would have lived with um now just a little bit about that permit history again at the time that the boms acquired the property there was an outstanding permit for a new boat lift and dock um that had been pulled by a prior owner that permit was not finalized um as part of that permit that was approved for construction you can see that um the it it included the lift and the post the uh reinstallation of the pilings for the for the boat lift it was approved for construction but again that permit was not finalized the dock or the lift is was still standing at the time that the boms uh purchased a property but this permit for whatever reason was was was uh not final however the boms pulled their own permit in 2022 to uh to for for uh uh restoration and repair of the seaw wall um and so that permit was pulled 2022 it was approved and marked as final November 29th of 2022 this is a copy of the engineering plan that accompanied the 2022 permit that the that the boms applied for um and you'll note that that was approved for construction it also shows location for the boat lift to be located in the pilings relative to the property line end which would be right about around here um so you can see that it's clearly it's clear to everyone that the piling would have been over the line at that time um this was the plot plan that was included in that submitt package which also shows that four pilings to be reinstalled um for the future boat Li pilings would be installed and it it showed basically where they would be reinstalled on the on the plot plan Mr chair can can can I interrupt for a second I just want to clarify that that permit that Mr ringer is referencing was for a seaw wall seaw wall permits are not reviewed by zoning which regulate the size and and where the boat dock is so just to clarify that zoning did not review this boat dock when it came in right we're not we're not pointing the finger at anybody and we're not saying that anybody did anything wrong um I'll note that the pilings were at issue in the permit because reflective tape was mentioned in the permit as a necessity for those pilings but nevertheless we have understand that zoning position that they didn't review the permit and we're not saying that zoning or staff or anybody did anything wrong it's just a matter of fact of what it was the the the plans that were submitted that were approved for construction reflect what they reflect um so it is it is what it is um unfortunately this is the asilt survey of what is currently existing and so when and and that permit again was finaled the 22 permit was Final unfortunately this is the uh asilt survey that was submitted to the county that was final which shows and you can clearly see the problem um you've got one piling that is over the lot that is over the lot line and that's the offending piling right there um and that there in lives the problem because that's what's existing and that is what is created the the problem that we need to come back and cure today um after the seaw wall permit was pulled there was also an electrical and installation of boat lift permit that was pulled um that was 22 BC 20542 that was approved as Final on uh December 6 2022 and you'll note that that was also approved for construction showing that there was a lift that was going to be installed um and that the permit speaks for itself um so Mr Mr chair again that was for electrical permit zoning does not review electrical permit even though it was for a boat left I I'll clarify that that while we're making that clarification I just want to for the other board members um seaw walls have a particular exemption within the rules where they're allowed with um to extend I think it's 18 in beyond the existing seaw wall without a lot of yeah regulatory review yeah that's all that's all uh reviewed by natural resources but I believe it's 18 in for a Max of 4T for a maximum but but they put in seaw walls uh frequently cor correct but to rep the existing just with the understanding that it is less disturbance to the water and turbidity and things if you don't remove the old seaw wall and just place a new one in front of it and that's just board so understand that okay sorry for the interruption yeah and again not I'm not going to argue with staff what I am going to say is that the the permit application was amended to include installation of the lift that is in the package um and so the lift was an issue in that permit um but again we're not there's no we're not pointing fault here it is what it is um this is just the situation the point is the beom tried to do everything that they could do to get this the current structure permitted legally that's what they tried to do um the there was also um there's a Code Enforcement case that's currently active on the property um it was reported by the neighbor Thomas Guthrie you will hear from him and his attorney an objection to this variance application in momentarily um that case is pending right now it stayed pending the outcome of this variance and any Curative action that gets taken this is a picture of the uh of the um Boat Lift as it currently exists today um just to give you some orientation so um you can see the farthest to the east pilings which would be on your left side of the picture if you actually look at them in reality um they kind of sit mid center of the property just based on the orientation of the way that the lot is configured um but unfortunately the way that the lot line is extended Into the Water by code it just it just results in that cutting off of the of the of the piling by 2 and 1/2 ft um here's a view from the water side where you can look back at the subject property um this right here if I can use the cursor this would be the offending piling right here um and then you can see the Gap distance between here and Mr Guthrie's dock structure um to the east this is another shot of the distance and the gap between the properties um there are our clients have measured there's 42 ft between this piling that uh the farthest I guess uh uh West piling that Mr Guthrie has uh on the canal side and the offending piling that of the of the of our clients um this is a picture of the gap between the subject property showing the amount of space that Mr Guthrie has to navigate his boat into his slip um and again I'll reiterate the fact that this is no different than the same Gap that Mr Guth had for 9 years preceding uh the seaw wall being restored so it's exactly the same as it was when Mr Guri purchased the property and for the next nine years and exactly the same as it was for 40 years uh back to 1980 here's a picture of and this is a video clip I showed it last time Mr Guthrie navigating his boat into his slip just show it again um for the benefit of Miss Clemens there does not appear to be any difficulty in navigating into the slab so again what we're here to do is to try to fix this problem the fact that the post is over the line by going back to that plan that we showed you that has everything within the triangle to try to fix it and and make it code compliant have the variance granted and that way we no longer have a Code Enforcement issue um the applicant needs to show that um they they meet the various criteria of section 62 253a um I'll just go through them very briefly uh that special conditions and circumstances exist that are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification um we've asserted this in our application but because of the orientation of the property the way that the property is configured um obviously that's not something that is applicable to all Lots in the zoning classification it is a unique lot and that it does have limited Frontage um that obviously uh is not something that the applicant did uh this proper this uh subdivision was subdivided long ago um and the applicant did not uh establish the property lines where they are um and that so as to number two that the special conditions did not result from the actions of the applicant they did not um the that the granting of the variants will not confer any on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands buildings or structures in The Identical zoning classification um the applicant since only requesting the ability for adequate and similar usage of the publicly dedicated platted Canal um that is enjoyed by other similarly situated properties within the same subdivision and the same zoning classification r111 I've showed you all of those examples of other Lots in the same subdivision that have the exact same situation um the applicant is only seeking the same use that has historically existed on this same exact subject property the applicant notes that uh similar in kind variances for docks and lifts have previously been granted by the board of adjustment on Lots in the Diana Shore subdivision and we'll talk about that in one second um number four that the literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in The Identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant the literal enforcement of the code would deprive the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed by properties in the same subdivision and Zoning classification to construct docks and utilize the platted Canal um the literal enforcement of the code constitutes an undue and uh unne unnecessary and undue hardship on the subject property and creates an inequitable burden on the applicant's property and the right to use the subject property and the dedicated uh public Canal um that the variance is granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land uh building or structure uh again we've showed you that we're literally using every available uh uh inch of space that we can within the extended triangle to try to uh put the lift back into a spot that we can make it code compliant um that the granting of the variants will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter such that the variance will not be injurious uh to the area uh involved or otherwise detrimental to Public Welfare uh the existing ex accessory boat dock and lift does not detrimentally affect the adjacent or neighboring properties the granting of the requested variance will allow for a reduction of the existing non-conformity uh of the existing accessory dock lift as reinstalled as part of the prior seaw wall restoration um the requested use is consistent and uniform with such uses on similarly situated adjacent and neighboring properties and the applicant notes that similar in-kind variances for docks and lifts have been granted by the board of adjustment in the Diana Shore subdivision um we're just asking for the exact same right to be granted to this particular applicant uh and again talking about those um in January of 2024 the board of adjustment granted a 7.3t variance in Diana Shores um for uh go forth and morno it was 23v uh 0050 um these are all of the doc variances that have been granted by the bo this year um there were there was a projection variance a total side ANS projection variance with with 24v uh 00005 um there been a number of projection variances and then again as we talked about um at the very last meeting um the boa granted uh variance 24v 000037 which was the corner lot on merid island for 72 ft um on a pie-shaped lop in an exact similar situation on lont court on Meritt Island um so for those reasons we do believe that um the variant the variance should be granted and we're asking for the uh Board of adjustments uh support and approval of the requested variants we'd be glad to make ourselves available for questions well the uh board questioning proceeds with um let's see this is District two which is our new member Miss Clemens um I don't I don't have any questions at this time okay anyone I think all of us have heard all this before except for Miss Clemens with that being said we appreciate your time I would uh request just a brief period of time for rebuttal um of the opposition that you are sure to hear okay thank you all all right at this time we ask for uh anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in favor or against this uh application and I would ask that we allow the the four people to come forward first and then we will hear from the opposition so if you are speaking in favor of this application please come forward I need your name and address for the record ma'am sure Colleen Ley 1405 CPS Court Meritt Island okay um do you swear that the testimony you're giving us today is the truth yes sir okay um you gave us your physical or you you gave us your address what is your physical location to the uh property in question yes So Lisa and John live on my corner so I'm on cus they're on Artemis may I ask is that across the street it is or on okay uh so I live just so we get oriented yes all right thank you go ahead so I am friendly with both parties so it has nothing to do with any of that I do kayak on the canals so the other day I said you know let me go down and check for myself because so I was here last month and I thought let's just see because I go down all the canals and I did go down there and I said I don't understand how there should be any issue maneuvering the boat in and out I'm not an expert I do have a boat but I didn't see any issue and John and Lisa are willing to take move the pole at a cost of course this is costing a lot of money as we probably all know what else else could they possibly do take the whole thing down it's I'm starting to think there's really not much that's going to be okay you know if you understand when I where I'm coming from so I just I didn't see anything that would be obstructing okay um does any board member I guess it starts with un Cloud do you have questions for this uh this witness I don't have any questions okay thank you thank you Mr attorney do you I are you all together or is that a separate we're all together here let me yeah yeah I go ahead uh nick vidoni uh business address 959 North Coco Boulevard Unit number five Coco Florida 32922 uh we're all together as a group but I do have some people that will be speaking I have uh Mr Guthrie uh Patty Hill I have Josh long who's an expert in building ducks and boats or building uh boat docks and lifts and [Music] um think that's who I have those three people in addition to myself you're facilitating shepherding I'm not I'm just going to let them speak just like last time okay okay um and I do have a PowerPoint presentation and some exhibits uh may I begin yeah okay Mr chair just so just so you're aware the uh photographs that was provided at the last Board of adjustment meeting is you're pack in okay are these duplicates again some of these are different some of them are the same and I do have a PowerPoint okay um thank [Music] you is there a mouse for [Music] this excuse me sorry all right can can I just get clarification where is that PowerPoint coming from where's it coming from uh USB okay so so typically in order to show a PowerPoint presentation it needs to be submitted for staff and staff re reviews that part 20 we need to have at least 24 hours just to make sure that um everything is is uh correct and there's no offensive language in that and Greg you can correct me if I'm wrong so I guess it's it's up to you all to determine whether you're going to hear it but just just so you're aware that staff has not reviewed this uh PowerPoint presentation is there any objection from a board member to view the PowerPoint no we will trust that there is no falsities or objectionable language yeah in the PowerPoint you know even though we're dealing with buting we're not using a sailor language in the in this proceeding so um the first uh part is um where things are right now uh where the lot lines are if you extend them out that's the red portion going out into the water that gray portion is the uh hooded portion of the beom's uh current boat lift with the roof on it if you looked at the uh Vari what they're they're using is a 22 ft boat um so that that hood that we're looking for that's at least 22 ft or maybe a little bit more what you heard um um it's a repat talk about is that there was a 42t distance and that doesn't seem to work at least geographically looking at this because if we have about a 22 or 25t hood on that boat that's going to give us some sort of frame of reference um and I think what you're going to hear from Mr Guthrie is that when you measure the end of his uh boat slip to the lot line which is where they're they're trying to hem this structure into we're dealing with 25 ft and Mr Guthrie has a 22t boat that doesn't include the outboard the outboard is going to add about 2 feet so we're talking about 24 ft meaning 1T worth of play now I I don't know how much all of you do uh parallel parking one foot isn't a lot it's difficult um and they're look trying to have you Mr Guthrie do this with a essentially a 24ft boat um so this is what they they're saying um the varant is going to be we've D we've kind of estimated around where uh Mr Guthrie has his boat slip I think it's uh it's telling that when the beom's asked for this variance they didn't measure how much distance you really have to the end of that boat s we didn't do any sort of survey we don't have any of that information all we have is just people going out there with measuring tapes and I'm from what Mr Beckstrom or what Mr Guthrie has measured we have 25 ft to work with with this plan um now the new plan is actually worse than the old plan uh the good thing about the old new plan is um it's kind of hard to see but you do have some space to kind of come in here back back in the the boat and come out this way uh you don't really have that extra space cuz what we're dealing with is that piling is really right here the other pilones right here so there is extra worm to move here if that boat isn't parked um so this shows the state of the property in 2018 um this would have been before the boms purchased it and this would be at least where things were this was not a problem because again you could bring that boat out here back it up and come out um can you say that again yeah so if Mr guth's boat is parked right here if you total it up it's about 24 ft that he has a boat when you add the outboard motors in and I think that might be the outboard right there um so we have onto the old plan he could back out this way angle in a little bit this way and then move out when you take up all this space he can't really back out he has to essentially go out here and then he's got one foot to go zigzagging out in order to get loose and come out this way um would you entertain a question so in this old this old configuration uh Mr Guth is actually crossing the property line to back out of his slot that's what he was doing before yes yes so he's he's crossing their property line to get his boat out yeah if you call it a property line I mean well Pro Line yeah projection line I mean they don't own the thing in the canal so it's not exactly their property but you have rights to use the canal so yes yes um the but uh you know what I think you saw in the video is Mr Guthrie coming around in this way you can understand how it's much easier to pull into this slip than it would be to pull out um so this is uh also the old configur figuration if you kind of look at where the boundary lines are that you have that one um piling that was within the approximate lines once you take them out out into the water um so everything was in it was not compliant with the 7.5t setbacks but it did provide Mr uh Guthrie with sufficient room to back out and navigate outward uh this is another picture I think the the lines are a little bit wrong it just probably comes out this way but this is another picture this would have been around the condition of the property around when the vrs purchased the property in December 16th 2021 um so here's the permit history we had some representations by the ex's attorney that this uh current structure was approved and that's not what the permit history reflects uh we have the relevant uh permits here on bass uh we have um the 2018 one I think that was the one that was expired from the previous owner that was discussed then we have um this uh 2022 Rees Marine construction and 2022 RS electrical those were the two ones that Mr Beckstrom was uh presenting an argument that the new structure uh got approved through those permits and if you look at the first one which uh was the boatlift they say describe the work to be done new boatlift and dock does not say new um uh it does not say that they are uh moving that well this was the 2018 one this was the one that closed out the new boat lift and duct so it's clearly identified what's being done here uh this is the correct way to put up a a boat lift and dock is to clearly identify it and they also say right here this is where we're planning to put the pilings those pilings are essentially the uh what we saw in the pictures they're essentially looking to put the pilings in the exact same place uh where they were before and if that was the plan here today Mr Guri wouldn't have a problem with it he didn't have a problem with where the old pilings were um so this is again another going back to that picture of uh what things looked like around when the beex drums purchased the property um this would have been the um first permit relating to uh the Waterfront that from 2002 again that we have a description that it says seaw wall not a boat lift and when we have the actual physical application they say new seaw wall construction there's no mention that there's going to be a boat lift uh this were this was part of the plans again these are engineering plans these are not necessarily plans up for the boat lift if we look at these plans we're going to zoom in here um into the box in red if you look right here it says new seaw wall construction doesn't say a new boat lift construction and we zoom in it says propose future Boat Lift by others so they were making it clear to the building department hey this isn't part of the plans right now this isn't what's getting appr approved it's proposed for future uh for future permit application um and then this was the asbit built survey showing what actually was done um once they built the seaw wall and put in the new boat lift without any permit or approval and if you look at what happened is uh they built the new seaw wall then they extended it out about 2 and 1/2 ft and then they added it's about 2.6 right here so they actually move the whole structure further out giving less room to work with when they built the new boat lift so you know the uh the old Pyon was probably somewhere around here and now we're moving that piling out here um if we look at here they say that this is about 2.6 feet so we're dealing with something more than that um this is the other permit um uh oh this the Marine construction so we have uh this is where the one of the code violation comes about they say that there is work without a permit essentially that's the uh the boat lift that was done without that permit all the document said hey we're just putting in a seaw wall maybe we're putting in a boat lift later and then they put in the boat lift without getting permit approval for it um this is the electrical um I just want to interject a question on the previous one um gather my thoughts so the boat lift that was put in without the permit uh ended up with a code violation yeah that's and that's what the pre I don't know if this this the previous slide yeah that's why we're here today um the be's attorney said quote they did everything that they could do to get it permitted and that's not the case they did the work without getting a permit and we're caught or encoded yeah okay so I mean if you were going to do everything to get it permitted we'd have a file okay did this code violation get cured it's not cured they kind of put it on hold to see what happens with this variance hearing okay thank so um and that's my understanding I could be wrong maybe um building department has a more information but that's my understanding my understanding that the uh variance today would remedy the piling that's outside of the property line project as a projection to the canal which is that code violation correct okay so um this is the electrical work again what they're looking to do is they say wire new boat lift install you know all this kind of stuff essentially put things on the current pilings um again they never got a permit for those pilings uh so um this is one of their submissions if you look at the submissions they not really showing where the lot lines are but they gave a uh description of the new boat lift that would is much smaller than the actual boat lift um where the pilings are and then they give the engineering uh for a boat lift which is standard engineering um there really isn't anything that needs to uh get rejected here since it is standard and um in 2023 this is what we're left with we've got the py lines going out and additional structures jutting out into the water uh towards uh Mr Guthrie's side of the water and it's important to note that you know right here we do have the neighbors um uh boat lift Mr Guthrie isn't doing this out of spite you know he's let you know he he doesn't have a problem with the neighbor being over the lot lines he has a problem with this right here because there is not a sufficient amount of space Mr chair I'm sorry um I want to make sure that everyone understands what's before you the applicant um today W with the plan that he shows shows that that piling being moved which meets code the variances before you are for the side setback our code requires a minimum of 7/2 ft from the side property lines the applicant is asking for 100% variance to that so that's the two variances that are before you it's not about the piling that goes across that that property line that will be solved when and if this variance gets these variances that's permitting versus zoning cor correct but that's that's what's on the table today is for the applicant to remove that piling and the two variances for the side subb backs okay thank you for that CL verification so um this is another picture of what the conditions of the property is here now this neighbor to the north and east he's got a boat lift that goes over the line Mr Guth does not have a problem with that and as we're going to get deeper into the uh with the uh zoning requires is it allows these type of things to happen um going over the lines when you've got the consent or the colle collaboration with the other no the code has changed since then it does not allow people to do a two permits together to have them not meet to have them not have a pro a setback code has been changed when did that happen that happened about three years ago well I think the what's on the current well says that if they neighbors jointly do one dock across the boundary line that can do that are you saying that the code doesn't say that anymore it was changed in 2021 April 20th okay so I mean I think that's going to explain why you have a lot of uh this going on and a lot of the pictures um transgressing the lines that Mr uh reinger showed is he had ways for the neighboring owner to give the consent to build on the other line um certainly we did have uh a letter from support from Maria zuda and Thomas fagans they're the ones that live right here to the South if that was uh still permitted to allow one one owner to build on the other owner's property with their consent you have have multiple ways where you can build a boat dock that still abides by the setbacks with Mr guth's lot but uh but overhangs onto the lot to the South and they're the ones that saying they're the neighbors saying um let the beex strums have their Boat Lift uh so if they do want to do that they they have I think they might have an option to uh submit a plan to allow the beex strums to build it on their side of the lot lines um the this is where things currently are um uh you where you you're showing that overhang with the the boat from the lot line uh This was done without any discussion with Mr Guthrie um and this is one of the uh current um violation cases uh there's one against the contractor William theel saying that he did uh work without a permit and then there's another code enforcement case regarding putting a ramp without a permit um and blocking the canal right away um so what we're ultimately uh here for is the new plan and we're going to get into that uh these are the standards set by code through for getting a variance um one is that the variance is authorized due to circumstances unique to the applicant's property itself and not shared by other property in the area there exists an undue and unnecessary hardship created by the zoning regulations that's the broad language that defines generally when you can get a variance um we're going to go deeper into that language about talking about undoing unnecessary hardship but the way that courts have interpreted that language um it's essentially that uh you have to meet the six elements that we're going to get into and the hardship the whole idea of hardship is that there is no reasonable use of the property without the variance it's a high standard um so uh again in in the section 62- 253 of the code we again are using that language unnecessary and undo hardship we're going to get into the six um elements for a variance um uh but I do want to go here briefly which is the part of the um code that um requires the variance so 62.2 one18 uh that's the part that talks about setbacks and it says in cases where a public works director determines that the proposed doc or peer May interfere with the primary function of draining achievement or right of way the applicant may be required to obtain approval from the board of County Commissioners now there hasn't been a determination as far as I know from the public works director but you do have uh in the code considerations that uh the navigability of the canal needs to be considered um so then we have in subsection d a boat dock covered boat dock or Pier including piling shuck then no closer than 7 and 1/2 ft to the side of the property line as projected into in a straight line into the Waterway where two abiding property sharing canal to submit concurrent permits or dock structures there's no minimum side setback from the shared property no that is not in the code today okay this is what I got from the website yesterday so um I guess they haven't updated it code is has it updated okay so um uh so we talked about the neighbor to the South if that was uh permitted you could get consent from the neighbor to the South to build a structure that's still abided by uh by Mr Guth setbacks um so dealing with issue number one that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification um circumstances aren't unique there are numerous Corner Lots with these same restrictions uh this is what's built into the purchase price of for Lots they are uh less desirable than Lots with more Riverfront uh access if you were to talk to any sort of realtor or appraiser they build in a price per foot of Waterfront into the valuation of the property this is why Corner lots are not going to yield uh a higher value than something with more water Frontage so essentially uh what that also means is the difficulties of the property are baked into the price when you buy a corner lot um there are plenty of uses for a corner lot that doesn't don't require a 22-ft boat you've got jet skis you've got ginus you've got uh paddle boards and kayaks there are smaller crafts that you can fit into the these spaces but essentially what was done by the beom here is they essentially came to the problem they bought a property that was too small for their boat they did construction without talking to the neighbors without getting a permit and then they try to you know get what they want anyway even though that 22 foot boat as is uh currently planned is not going to work for the spacing um so here's some of the other Corner Lots um and you can see just visibly when when you know this isn't a unique situation people have Corner lots and uh if this spaces are too tight the building a dock is not going to work this is 101 via havari merid Island that's in the packet we have 225 Inlet Avenue Meritt Island Florida and then uh 1660 Vega Avenue in merid Island all these are Corner Lots who um at least you know with the neighboring structures are restricted and their availability to build a boat dock for a large vessel uh such as the Beckstrom so this is not a unique situation um item number two the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant um here they do the Beckstrom chose to purchase the property um we're going to get into three cases that talk about issues regarding variances but this the case of elen versus City of Miami cited here um essentially said that when you choose to purchase a property with a hardship that disqualifies you from a variance you don't get to come to the hardship and then whine about it and um ask for a variance because of you chose it's having your cake and eating it too so um the other actions are um they moved the boms moved the seaw wall about 2.4 ft at least creating more confined conditions for the subject property uh in addition they chose to have a 22-ft boat a smaller craft would fit in the G given space without these navigation issues um there are other circumstances that result from the actions of the applicant again they were the one that chose to build the previous structure without a permit uh they're trying to use the variance as a way to get out of that so they they built without a permit um and they did not talk to uh Mr Guthrie to get any sort of um discussion as to what he needs for navigability um so here's the kind of cross-section of the current and proposed variants um uh as we discussed this is what they're proposing they're not asking that the uh this body ratify the current structure um so uh number three is that the granting of the variants will requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands building or structures in The Identical zoning C classification it would violate this provision it would Grant a special privilege all Corner lots have similar concerns if there are exceptions for Corner Lots this is going to essentially be like a change written into the code essentially anyone can apply for variance and crowd out uh other owners from the corner um uh it would be at the expense of Mr Guthrie uh the 7.5ft setbacks uh permit advate adequate navigation to Mr Guthrie a plan without the setback interferes with that NE get navigation and it would NE negatively affect Mr Guthrie's property values if he is only given one foot of navigation space that's going to affect any sort of resale value associated with his property and uh as a bit of um a preview we have Josh long here who is in the business of building boat docks and lifts he his opinion is that the standard minimum space that you need uh is 5T not 1 foot and the recommended space is 10 foot so they're exceeding the uh the space needed by industry standards uh by only giving my client one foot worth of space for Ingress and egress into his boat lift um so essentially what's if the V the variance is granted it's you know taking away those extra feet that my client has to navigate in and out um four is that literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive applicants of Rights commonly enjoyed by other properties of the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter will constitute undo hardship on the applicant and we're going to get into this uh more in detail when we go into the cases but the we have the unnecessary and undue hardship those are the big picture items here the case law says that that means um there's no reasonable use of the property that's what you have to meet for this uh element so um you know I think what hasn't been shown here is that they can't use that property they have a house on it so they're able to use it for house they've got a waterfront so they can always put whatever they want on the uh boat dock and they can also use it for smaller craft there's no Universe for this lot where there is no uh use of the property without the V the variance so that it's imposs possible for them to meet this uh this element of the variance five is that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land Building and structure well again uh lift for a smaller vote for paddling vessels jet ski those are options those aren't here um neighbor of the South that looks under the o old old code could have consented um then we also have what going to be a third option that's not listed here uh that I think Josh long will discuss they they do make Boat Lifts where you lift the boat out and you bring at least some of that boat over the land over the seaw wall and onto the land so there is that third option that the becks have to still comply with setback requirements and and give Mr Guthrie uh his navigational rights they can create that lift that brings the boat onto their property um so just if we go back what that would look like is um here's the their current plan you could build something that uh pulls the boat uh over the seaw wall and some of the boat is going to be hanging over the land um number six the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and such that such use variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare well it's detrimental because it negatively affects Mr Guthrie's rights of Ingress and egress um and the variance would negatively affect his property value because now his uh rights of Ingress and egress have been greatly diminished um so this is going to be the first case I talk about the Ln versus City of Miami case it's in the packet um they what you'll find is going through a lot of the cases is very rarely um can uh soone meet the the elements of uh a variance at least under the when it's reviewed by a court so um uh with the Ln Court said is some exceptional and undue hardship to the property or to the individual land owner unique to that part parcel of property and not shared by property owners in the area is an essential prerequisite to granting uh granting of such a variance so you need to show exceptional and undue hardship uh they continue a variance which permits a use not authorized by an existing zoning classification fixed under a plan zoning of the area or neighborhood generally is not justified unless the land cannot yield a reasonable return when used for purposes authorized in its present zoning there's been no evidence of this at all this is what was required to show uh undue hardship under the standards uh that they have essentially no use that they can make of the property without obtaining the variance uh the case continues um talking about the variance that issued the complaintant showed that the hardship was self-created and self-imposed one who purchases property while uh it is in a certain known zoning classification ordinarily will not be heard to claim as a hardship a factor or factors which existed at the time he acquired the property so buying a piece of property with problems that's not hardship under the variance requirement uh the case continues when the owner himself by his own conduct creates the exact H which he alleges to exist he certainly should not be permitted to take advantage of it essentially buying the property you don't get to buy the property with problems and then complain about it um the Herrera versus Miami case uh um talks about that issue of harms a variance which permits a use not authorized by existing zoning restrictions for neighborhood is not justified unless no reasonable use can be made of the land without the variance that has not been showed um um again they they go into what that means where land is zoned for residential use deprivation of all beneficial use is proved only when it is established by competent evidence that the land cannot be used for any of the purposes permitted in such District uh the case eventually revers the variance because there is no finding quote without the variance it is virtually impossible to use the land as is presently zoned that is impossible to be shown here when the beum are using the property for a house with Waterfront views um the case went on to reverse the variant because there was no finding quote the LG hardship was not created by the applicant that's also going to be impossible here where the Beck droms created the situation and purchased the property uh with at least knowing or should have known knowledge of the conditions um the court goes on to say that um the neighboring Property Owners like Mr Guthrie here had a right to rely on existing zoning conditions and they had a right to a continuation of those conditions in the absence of showing that a variance was necessary um and the last quote from that case the standard is not whether variances have been granted to similarly situated applicants in the community or whether the grant of the variance would have a delerious impact on the surrounding area so when s bream's attorney goes and looks at all these other properties some of which may have existed under a different zoning regime um um those are not going to be uh things that the body can use to evaluate the variance essentially you have to hem it into those six requirements that we discussed um none of which the be drums have met um and then the last case is Nance versus Indian Atlantic um the court said that a PR requisite to the granting of a hardship zoning variance is the presence of an exceptional and unique hardship to the individual land owner unique to that parcel and not shared by others property owners in the area we we've shown that there's this is a common problem um for Corner Lots especially in the Dio Shores area um this was dealing with Indie Atlantic which is not too dissimilar for merid island with the canal structure um but the it was dealt with in India Atlantic is not a canal it was uh requesting a variance height variance for building on the beach um and the uh Court said that you know that was not something that could justify the variance um they said Indi Atlantic zoning restrictions are common difficulties shared by all other Oceanfront lot owners in the area and therefore not the unique hardship required to support a variant so essentially if you take that to Corner Lots here if Corner lots are having to deal with the same problems that's not going to be unique to you that's not going to fit that prong of the six elements required so um the this kind of just goes back to the approximate location on the uh the um the survey we don't know how accurate this is but um this is at least what Mr Guthrie has measured 25 ft um and it is not going to be sufficient for navigation while there are plenty of neighbors who believe the beom should have their property they're not the ones that have to deal with the navigational issues Mr Guthrie does um so um under these circumstances the variant should be denied and we have Mr Guthrie Josh long and Patty Hill um that have things to say in support of denying the variance oh and the other important thing to mention um because this did come up in the last hearing is that there is litigation regarding the current structure not the variant structure um the uh litigation for the current structure essentially says that they did not comply with the 7.5 foot setbacks uh this issue is subject to that court case um the trial was scheduled to be in January that's been continued I don't know when it's going to be but there this issue is subject to litigation in that case with the court um don't I take it walking away as your conclusion to the presentation yeah that's my conclusion so I I want Mr Guth well use Mr Guthrie first and then it will be uh please come forward are you Mr and Mrs Guthrie or is say well well you can come together is what I'm no she has her own things to discuss okay name and address for the record my name is Tom Guthrie I reside at 315 emus Boulevard Meritt Island okay um do you swear that the testimony you're giving us today is a truth I do okay I just want to remind you of something I said at the very beginning of our uh proceedings today and that I'm asking you to stay on point and be concise and avoid any discussion of personal animus with the neighbors okay okay thank you well at the beginning of the um beom's presentation they brought up some issues of hostility there's never been any hostility on my part the only conversation I had with Mr Beckstrom was when he had his um piling in the roof to his U boat dock overhanging my property line and his response was you take care of your property and I'll take care of mine Mr beom also took care of my property by moving my fence without my permission and installing his seaw wall on my property I made no issues with that the beom's own surveyor neelon svia surveying put a surveyor tag in the middle of the sea on the seaw wall and that tag number is lb 6946 I filed a complaint with code enforcement Margaret called calano contractor's code compliance officer was my contact for my complaint I periodically would call her for an update on my case and was told on more than one occasion she was investigating the contractor and the complaint I don't know what the results of that investigation into the contractor was after a period of time my attorney told me the Beckstrom are currently in violation of the building codes as confirmed by inspector castalano beom's attorney stated that he did an air measurement of the area I have to back my boat out of 40t if I had 40 ft to back my boat out I wouldn't be here today and I wouldn't be going through the the expense of Defending my property I did a physical measurement CU I didn't understand when a measurement was I did a physical measurement from the property line to the area that I have to back out with a tape measure and recorded 25 ft I have a 22-ft boat with an outboard motor and if the variance is granted the beom's boat will be on the property line and I will have restrict and I will have restrictions on three sides my dock to the front in my lift the seawell to the left and the beom's boat on the property line the beom's boat would be directly behind me and if the variance is granted the only way to get my boat out is to physically push it sidewards out of the area I have 100% disability from the Mass Department of Corrections and I've had multiple back surgeries the last being in November not being able to back my boat out would be a hardship for me I have been docking my boat for the past 10 years until the boms brought their property and I want to make note that one of the pictures that the beam's attorney took that house was abandoned for 5 years and that dock he keeps mentioning was falling in the water and I used to have to take my boat out by rope I couldn't back it out a friend of the backroom stated that he could back his 26 foot boat out of the area I described this person lives seven houses down on the canal and has never stepped foot on my property or has he ever witnessed me backing my boat out the contractor for the boms also stated he could back his 30 foot bodge out of that same area um to me that defies Common Sense the backrooms have shown a video from a distance showing me entering my boat lift the Beckstrom would not show a video of me backing my boat out so the board would get a complete picture of the the the entire picture um the reason they did not video me back in my boat out can only be answered by the beom's attorney and the beom's the beom's latest proposal shows his boat on the property line which gives me no relief in backing my boat out this would create a Hazard of me hitting his boat and damaging M so instead of hitting a piling I'm going to hit the side of his boat when I back out the latest proposal makes no mention of the roof that he has over his boat lift the roof measures 34 in from the side pilings and 10 ft from the front pilings this would not conform to the variant that they are asking the 10 ft from the front piling would place the roof overhang approximately 4 to 6 ft over my property again the beom's desire to have a large boat on a small Waterfront with restrictions should not be allowed to impact the use of my property provow County building codes are there for a reason to protect land owners and homeowners granting this variance will permanently have a negative effect on my property and the ET value of my home thank you thank you um do any of the board members have questions for this this witness one question when was the last time you were on your boat I'm sorry when was the last time you were on your boat probably about eight months ago eight months ago I haven't used it in agents it's probably when they recorded me entering my boat lift is there a reason for that um some physical problems okay the only pleasure I had was going out in my boat by myself now I have to make sure I have an Able Body person with me to push my boat outs sidewards okay anyone else I have a question I don't see it anywhere in here what's the actual Frontage of your property the water Frontage correct 80 ft 80 ft mhm okay thank you I'll set can I inquire of speaker uh no there's no cross- examin from [Music] from no you don't I have a right to cross examine Greg asking asking to cross-examine since he has Council he can cross it all right briefly please I just want to can we pull up the the video image that's on the screen right now um is that your CAD Marine that's reflecting that picture no who's catamaran is that um Josh and Marissa long and and how long was that c when when when was that catamaran uh mour at that location I don't know the exact dates approximately how long why the relevance of I'm asking him a question how approximately how long and I don't know the answer was there a code enforcement violation filed against you for the housing of that catw yes that's what I could understand I had 30 days to correct that and they given an unlimited amount of time to correct their problem so you had a code you actually had a code enforcement citation I I would have to defer to our Council to you can allow it or not you as the finder of fact you can allow ow it or not it was it was corrected I'm not a legal expert I'm just a citizen volunteer here so that's why I'm trying to give me some advice on how I should uh handle this well what specifically what is your question now well that they're cross-examining and objecting and I'm just not used to that well and that's what I say you're going to back basically act in the capacity of can you turn your microphone on I sorry you're going to act in the capacity of the finder fact so you can allow it or not so I can say objection overruled like they do in TV all right can I explain the circumstances that boat being there sure since it was brought up um the POR canaval yard Club was installing all new docks and his slip was gone and I gave him the I gave him the opportunity of um parking his boat at my dock until the new slips were um brought in what was the duration of that pardon me what was the duration of that uh talking I was probably two months two months maybe couple months M all right but the point is that wasn't your boat correct the point is you didn't drive that boat that wasn't his boat and it was just housed there for at his permission so therefore he did have control of it okay yeah well I guess I'm test my um anything else from the board here all right thank you okay thank you uh you also wanted to speak I'm not encouraging I'm just allowing you good afternoon all name and address for the record please uh my name is Joshua long uh I'm vice president uh commercial development for akid do and uh business dra 1790 Southwest 13th Court pompo Beach Florida okay um I'll swear you in first do you swear that the uh testimony you're giving us today is a truth yes sir okay credentials are you licensed as a contractor or anything like that no sir I'm not the licensed contractor uh I I work for uh acud do as a vice president for their commercial development side I work on engineering and design processes uh for basically large scale marinas um but I'm friends with Tom and he had asked me to talk about standard processes of design work and stuff okay go ahead okay so um as I said before uh I know Tom um the beom I don't know I'm sure they're fine people I don't know uh much of the argument uh about a week ago Tom who's a member of My Yacht Club approached me and said hey having some troubles trying to wrap my head around what how all this works could you come talked to me I went to his home and spoke to him about you know what we do as a design process for Designing docks and moving boats and how that kind of works and I'm just going to speak on that and facts and and and not so much the case but just more about how docks and and what we do in certain situations so um as Tom's attorney spoke earlier uh when we have a dock uh that we're designing and there's a set slip length that's argument sake that set slip length is 40 ft meaning that slip can hold a 40ft vessel that means the fair way that that vessel comes down and has room to maneuver 90 de is going to be set somewhere between the ranges of 50 to 60 ft on average so we try to do not less than 5 ft front and rear or you know uh of the vessel you know and not more than 10 ft for sake of Saving Room you know um so tom o sorry terribly sorry Tom had uh went out there with a measuring tape as he spoke earlier and said look I only have 25 ft here I have a 24t vessel you know what would you do in this situation uh and I had to clarify I said well what do you mean what would I do he's like if you were the neighbors what would you do and I said well you know if I was required to do something davitz would be the situation that I would do and that was just all that was asked uh davitz if you don't know or seaw wall cranes that are able to lift a vessel up and towards the sea Walmore doesn't leave any pilings or anything out in the water and leaves clearances underneath of it for movement so that's what was asked of me uh and just to clarify because I know it was asked that vessel that's in that image is my vessel as I said Tom is a member of the same Yacht Club that I'm member of and during the construction reconstruction of our Yacht Club he allowed me to park it there it was there for as he stated a couple months till he got noticed that we were in that he was in violation and he asked me to move it which I did immediately upon request so um and I owe him a great deal of thanks for the opportunity so but uh besides that as I said uh that's basically all I have to say uh mine was more on technical value on design process and you know in that type of situation look it would behoove me to sell a dock if I could to the boms but you know that's not the case I think so that's your boat that is my vessel yes ma'am so but uh that was my next thing yeah that was my next procedure was to see if any of the board had questions but they jumped G on me yeah yeah uh that's basically all I have to say it's more of technical value so hold on any questions from board no actually I take that back what is the length of your boat uh my vessel is 36 ft which is uh about I close to the full length of his dock if it wasn't yeah I think it was the full length of his dock I can't remember exactly but we squeezed it in there it was tight so yeah okay thank you thank [Music] you as as I stated early on we've we've had some flexibility here but anyone as I said anyone from the audience wishing to speak uh will be given the opportunity to address the board only once however if you would I will violate that and if you have any concluding words and then that will be the end of the opposition I I've said my part but Patty uh P oh I'm sorry I thought we only had two and I apologize for that hello so uh name and address for the record oh Patricia Hill 315 emis Boulevard Merit Island Florida okay and do you swear that the testimony you're giving us today is the truth yes okay okay speaking in opposition or for or against the approval of the application I'm opposing the approval it Vari thank you I forgot to ask the others for the record I'll try to make this short I'm here to today to explain a few facts that I think are important about the case our neighbor Mr and Mrs Beckstrom they filed a variance to eliminate the 7 and 1/2 foot uh setback on our property if the Beckstrom were granted this variance it would impede on our reparan rights as well as provide a hardship for us the beom have a pattern of infringing infringing on Mr Guthrie's property rights they have demonstrated that they don't respect Mr Guthrie's property rights and they don't follow the guidelines for zoning and ordinances let me explain first they moved the Tom's fence back and took some of Tom's property they did this knowingly as the surveyor has the mark a permanent mark on their seaw wall displaying the property line the beom's move Tom's fence without asking him or and infringed on his property Tom has never and would never encroach on the backstrom's property did Tom ask them to move it back no he didn't next when the beom's bu built their new seaw wall they again built it on Tom Guthrie's property they did this without asking Tom Tom Guthrie has never and he would never encroach on their property did Tom ask the beom to go to the expense of moving the seaw wall back on their own property no he did not when the beom built their new dock they built a much bigger one larger one Tom tried to talk to Mr Beckstrom about the new Dock and the property lines M Beckstrom said you take care of your property I'll take care of mine the new dock larger dock was built on Tom's property as well as violating ordinance section 62- 2118 section 62 2118 is about residential boat docks and peers it says boat docks covered boat docks or peers including pylons together with mored vessels or watercraft of any Waterway encroachment shall maintain a clear navigable Zone by expending no closer than 7 and 1/2 ft to the side property line as projected in a straight line into the Waterway the be's Boat Lift does not comply with the 7/2 ft set boat setback this no new boat lift which is much larger than the old one causes a hardship for Tom Guthrie to safely navigate his boat out of the dock the new boat lift makes it very difficult and dangerous to back the boat out into the canal with the beom's oat Boat Lift Tom could sit in the driver's seat of the boat and back into the canal easily now the process is much more difficult with the larger boat they have built Tom has to back up the boat a short distance jump out of the driver's seat run to the other side of the boat take a metal pole and push on the pylon trying to back the boat trying to turn the back of the boat to prevent the be hitting the backstrom's dock many times it takes two to three times before he can line it up up successfully I have personally been in the boat and I've seen the danger and the difficulty it presents on Windy days it's almost impossible he just used to sit in the driver's seat and back up the boat now Tom is disabled and recently had Barra surgery so we rarely use the boat anymore due to this hardship the ordinance was created to maintain a clear navigable zone for people to navigate their boats the beom have already taken part of Tom's property rights with no regard or consideration Tom tried to talk to them about this new dock to prevent this problem the beomes keep taking Tom's property and ignoring his rights Tom has never and he never would infringe on their property rights even though they have continued to take his he now has to absorb the financial burden of council to defend his rights and protect his property at no fault of his own in addition the financial hardship in addition to the financial hardship graning the variance could deflate his property value another point I want to bring up is that the letters stating that from the neighbors supporting the variant it it basically said that we like the Beckstrom and we want you to Grant this variance but there weren't any facts given to why to substantiate the variance and none of the people that would be affected by this variance none of these people that wrote These letterss would are affected by this variance none of them live right next door none of them have this difficulty backing their boat out I just think that that's important to P um put out there but on the other hand I have been in the boat and personally W witnessed the difficulty and the safety issues it presents the first time that he asked me to push on the pylon with the pole we were actually coming in which is much easier than going out I actually thought I would just go up there and push on the pole but the weight of the boat and just the the um water moving and stuff it actually like pushed me back jerked me back and it scared me and I told them you can break your arm doing this so I just want you to know that all these people that say it's easy and stuff they haven't done it they haven't been in that boat you know they're just saying it for whatever reason but it's not really the facts the facts are it is a hardship to back that boat out and that's why we don't really use it as much anymore with his health issues and stuff he can't jump up there and push on the pylon to straight to turn that boat the way it needs to be turned and I'm nervous by the way okay so the just a little more um two three okay thir okay the the section 62- 253 this the last thing I want to mention the prequest prequest for granting the variant States in order to authorize any variance from the terms of this chapter the board of adjustment shall find all of the following factors to exist and then it lists the six factors the lawyer went through all six showing that none of the factors exist therefore the V shouldn't be granted but the easiest one that I find to see is the second one it says that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant the circumstances in this case do result from the applicant in his actions he chose to buy limited Canal Frontage with 23 ft versus Tom's 80 F foot Frontage he chose to build a bigger boat lift than his property would allow he chose to put his boat lift on Tom's property so those actions and circumstances are a result of the applicant's action so they have not met all six that's just one that they didn't meet but so if you you have to meet all of them so because they didn't meet that one he shouldn't be granted the variance please take all this into consideration thank you for taking the time to listen to these facts I hope you will honor the this ordinance and deny the variants that the Beckstrom are requesting thank you gold we may have some questions okay would your hold yeah uh any questions from the board um I have a handful of questions that might include bringing Mr Guthrie back up too um I live in mered Island I moved to mered Island in 1995 so I'm extremely familiar with all the Waterfront I'm currently a homeowner that lives on the water I um am have had my real estate license since 2004 I am the owner broker of Coastal Life properties for the last seven years so I'm extremely familiar with these kinds of questions these kinds of concerns um I wouldn't say that I agree with you know everything that I've heard but I think some of the key points that give me concern is the attorney mentioned that the neighbor was to Grant a portion of the physical piece of the property um that would be the the idea or resolution potentially that you you recommended um when in fact the current owners the beom um are allowing some of that property line for Mr Guthrie to back into in order to access out so my question is I want to know how Mr Guthrie navigates in and out of the canal does he back towards the 28 ft that the backstrom's own and then he goes back forward or does he back into the center of the canal basically backs out enough to where he can throw the back end of the boat um East or West into the canal not towards their property but away from it because if he went straight back he would just hit it right which is the the imaginary line in which Mr I'm sorry I forgot your first your name but the opposing attorney suggested that he had to back into that variance or into that uh the property space of the bextrum in order to assume I'm assuming mean move back you know out through the canal going forward versus backwards well he he well the thing is I think correct am I correct in saying that is that the is that the ideal way of they can't go all the way back into their property he backs out a little bit and then swings the back end of the boat out towards the canal and I think that's in our seven I don't think we cross when we take the boat I don't think we cross the poy line I think that's in our 7 and 1/2t setback area that we're where when he pulls out that he's in okay that that didn't I didn't seem to and that's what they're wanting to take away is that s and a half the variance is wanting to take away the 7 and A2 foot setback the line in which the the repairi and rights enter into the canal I'm I'm aware of that part um my other question is I'm trying to do the math of of the 25 ft versus 40t I think that's my biggest discrepancy um you know Mr Guthrie calculates 25 ft the boms calculate 40 I did have the opportunity to go to the property to see it myself so I was able to walk it and and see you know this um the visual of of that like I said I'm a bone oder myself my you know my the 40 ft was an aerial um provided by the beom but um I didn't hear that pH oh I didn't I I'm just going based on the physical papers that I have in front of me 40 foot uh space between the boat the end of the boat dock and where they the 40 ft was from the pylon to the pylon of the Mr guth's um yeah boat cover is what is what the is what this the vtrs are saying in this paperwork so again I'm having I'm trying to do the math my understanding but I know that um Josh measured it with Tom and they came up physically measured it just recently in the last week and physically came up with the 25 ft we have no idea about the 40 ft there's no way well let's just assume it's they you're both 50% not correct right so that that that would give you 32 feet to access and then that would say that their 40t is 32t cu I'm looking at it and if you have an 80 foot piece of f Frontage on the canal and I'm looking at a 36t boat you're approximately 10 ft off of the East properties line that's 45 ft so I'm looking at 30 to 35 ft airing in the side of the opposition for access to get out of that the back of the boat lift and and again if someone wants to correct me on the math I am completely open to that but I'm looking at the picture and I know the distance between the fence line to the home and and the the the the area that you're allowed for every property in Bard County and I'm again saying that somewhere between the fence line to the the current existing boat dock for Mr guth's property is approximately 10 15 if I'm being generous you have a 36t prop um vessel that's parked out front at an angle so again that's going to appear larger that's approximately 50 ft we have another 30 ft from that point assuming I think that the on his property you're saying that the frontage there it's the boat it our boat lift before his was put up was more towards the right side of that Frontage versus the left side you mean the east side of the property yeah I know that's what I'm looking at I'm looking at the current picture here but that shows that and again I didn't I didn't need to like pick you for the person for the questions but all of them are kind of piling up and I'm trying to come to an I that to me is the big deciding factor because I think ultimately what we're trying to decide is can you have physical use of your property the way that you would like to have it can they have physical use of their property the way that they would like to have it and what's the resolution in between right I can say that we don't have our property the way it used to be like you cannot you can say say that again you do I would like to say that we do not have use of our property as we used to before this new boat lift was built that it is much harder and I agree with them that it's there's only with the measurement they did there's only a small the boat vessel and what the space that's allowed is not sufficient not sufficient um not and it's not compared with what we used to have I understand that but then if I'm going to go back to the permits because that's the the other like tangible physical let me measure the numbers right the sea wall was here and we're just going to say here and they added 18 in because code said 18 in is what you can go out and that seaw wall permit passed correct so we may be 18 in out farther than what we are already expecting and then now we have this dock lift so in my opinion we're really only dealing with 18 in to potentially 2 feet different than what you were already experiencing prior to any kind of lift dock pylon any of that am I correct well the difference is with you try to take the boat out there's a huge difference like he would literally it would have to be 18 in it has to be more than that because he could just sit in his boat and back the boat out before and now there is no way you can do it there's just not enough room is it because you think it's visual because the lift is now up and in no line of sight no cuz we literally you have to use a pole to push the boat to swing the back of the boat to the side into the canal so you won't hit that new larger Boat Lift okay I just I think what I'm still missing is the the difference between the 25 fet and the 40 feet and I and if I'm going to be 5050 on both sides and say that you're I wonder where you got the 40 was that the when they it's in the papers it's in the papers that they measured they said it's who measured it cuz Tom and I understand that and and I'm I'm I'm a neutral party right you're saying 25 ft they're saying 40 that's a huge discrepancy for navigating in and out of the canal yes so if I'm giving you 50% in accuracy and giving them 50% ACC in accuracy then ultimately we're F we're following somewhere in between you know 30 to 32 feet which essentially would give a close to 10et clearance for him to be able to back out because before it was one foot yeah but that's that's really there is no there's 40 ft there okay well let's just say there's 32 well well there's really 25 so but I'm also looking and and I don't think you're hearing me I'm I'm looking at an 80ft plot M with a 36t boat I'm giving 10 feet on the east side that doesn't give me 80 feet that doesn't give me 25t to fill the gap for navigation does that make sense M may may I interject yeah um it's not a matter of convincing this witness whether no I know and I think that's where I I want the I want return we have board discussion I think to talk that through all right that's that's where the only place I have discrepancy of like trying to about that as a board I have a question if the variance they're proposing a variance to take SE the 7 and2 foot setb and it causes such a hardship for us to boat uh back the boat out when it never used to um it why would it matter like what the the difference the space we we appreciate your your question but I think we're we're not going to get a resolution on con consensus here so okay um we understand your concern okay all right is there anything else no no actually we're at the point of any more board questions okay I mean if anybody has any comments on what I said that's just that's where I'm we will come okay thank you very much okay thank you again just I usually say only once but is there anything you want to say in conclusion and and briefly please I just briefly on the 30 25 ft 30 I think the boat was 36 I'm looking that just folded my paper 36 yeah bring that over I mean it's less than 36 ft that we have to work with just if we're using the white boat as a measurement which we heard is 36 now what did actually is I don't know I didn't wasn't the one that measured it all we have is what Mr Guth is but it's definitely less than that 36 foot length of the boat if that's the what the length of the boat is okay um I don't I knew that you said you might have questions for Mr Guthrie I don't know if you guys still do I just wanted to make sure he can answer whatever concerns I put out there did you want and how he navigates in out of the canal and it helps me understand the the ability to use the property of of course you're still under roath sir correct um the only thing I want to clarify was I never heard of an air measurement taken from from um and being used as um where that 40 ft came from from an air measurement that's why I physically went out with the tape measure and measured from the property line to the area I have to back my boat out the property line correct where his boat will be right on the property line when I back out okay thank you gu what just to can you can you tell them how you you got to be you got to be up to the mic please can you tell them how you backed out the boat cuz I think there's questions about that when you're backing out the boat how'd you do that um Mr chair can I interject for a second yes you may so you're you're part of your discussion if it's a question that you have for Mr Guthrie then you can ask it it's not a it's not a give and take now does that make sense uh yes I thank you for that uh yes Direction sorry a question and answer and that's it that's it no no so I can ask that question how do you back out into the canal okay right now I back into to actually a um three-sided box my my boat lift seaw wall and with the be if this is pass the beom's boat right on the property line directly behind me so what I do is I back my boat out and I have to leave the driver's seat I have a um deck pole I have to get out and I have to physically push my boat outside Wass which kind of defies the L Bo come into the canal and turn out you back going going into my um do you are you you backing in West are you backing in I'm backing I have to back straight out to clear the front of my my my dog South okay and then you turn in the canal well to get out to the canal I have to push my boat outside Woods which kind of defies say that one more time to get my boat out of this three-sided box I have to push my boat out sidewards I can't go forward I can't go in reverse I have to actually push my boat out sidewards with the um deck pole are you in gear at anytime no M I'm in gear to back my boat out then I'm in neutral and I have to get up out of the seat and actually push my boat out with the deck pole could could I see if I can clarify the what you say he backs out takes and pushes the bow to make the turn so he's straightened into the canal then he pulls ahead is that correct yes okay pull you pull into the little Cove yes and and twist the bow into the canal pivoting on the motor does anybody know the distance of the canal um well it's it's fairly it's fairly wide on our end yeah okay thank you thank you all right um I'm sorry I they have a reut this is going to go back and forth for forever I'm not going to have anything else all right briefly please I'm going to be brief um I'm going to do a summ a a very brief summation but I am going to because the question was asked I am going to bring up Mr beom to talk about the measurement of the pilings and the distance between the pilings I think Miss Clemens I think you're right and and I would urge you to really think about your your position on this that what we're talking about is 2 and 1 half ft at Max at Max that's what we're talking about because the seaw wall was only pushed out about 18 in that's what it was and that pushed the piling out in over the line before that it was only 18 in the other way it's now 2 and 1/2 ft over the line so before it was either over the line or it was at the property line before that's what it was before and that's the way it was as Mr Guthrie operated his boat for n years preceding the movement 2 and 1/2 ft we're not talking about 7 and 1/2 ft we're not talking about that the variance application is requesting a 7 and 1/2t variance because that's what the setback is but but that's not what we're talking about in terms of movement and what Mr Guth has been dealing with it's literally 2 and2 ft and he didn't have a problem before now he does Dr Bass I think you you identified it perfectly which is if he's got a problem that means he's backing over the property line onto the beom's property perhaps Mr Guthrie should reconfigure his doc if he's got a problem getting out and maybe it's Mr guth's problem but that's a whole another story anyway that answers the question as far as how far the post is moved but I'll I'll let Mr beom explain how that measurement was taken the the 40 roughly 40 ft have you been up to the microphone before not okay then name and address for the record please uh John beom 305 aremis bouard Marland Florida 32953 okay do you swear that the testimony you're giving us today is the truth I do okay please be concise I will I I will right and I'm only going to talk about the measurement right so the measurement that I took was with a laser point a laser measuring device that I took from the piling in question to the the rear canalside piling of Mr Guthrie's boat lift that measured 42 feet I then to verify that measurement I measured from my my back piling to my other neighbors samuda piling and that measured 51 ft to verify the laser I then took a tape measure from my piling over to their piling and verified it was exactly 51 ft so the measurement from my piling in question to the piling on the back of Mr Guthrie's boat the nearest one that he would have to clear is 42 feet the reason the 25 ft is there is last Thursday Mr long came came to Mr Guthrie's property I was on my boat they dropped a tape measure through the fence onto my deck where The Medallion is and they measured from my seaw wall over to the back so from a geometry perspective if you look down the red line towards that 25 ft line that 25 ft is not from the piling that 25 ft is from the seaw wall to the back of his lift as You Follow that line down to my my piling you're moving further away from Mr guth's Boat Lift so it's not 25 ft from the piling that he has to clear on my boat lift to the piling he has to clear on his boat lift it is 42 ft that's it thank you okay thank very briefly just a couple of a couple of clarifications that I feel obligated to make um first of all the the cases cited by Mr vidoni that they're they're distinguishable I've articulated and explained to this board that that the boa has granted numerous variances of similar kinds in this subdivision for zero lot line setbacks um we believe it's appropriate in those cases we believe it's appropriate here um as far as the electrical permit and I do feel the need to address this point just because it was raised because I just I need the board to understand or I would like the board at least to understand that the beom did not do anything wrong in this case um with regard to the electrical permit it was stated that the electrical didn't include the boat lift well I'm looking directly at this the County's bass permit development website and I can tell you that on that website and I'm reading directly from the permit application for permit number 22 BC 20542 which is the electrical permit to whom it may concern I need to amend this permit application in the description on the permit application needs to say installing boat lift on existing polls as well as what is listed in the description on the original application thank you Curtis standoff Coastal lighting Solutions LLC that was the electrical permit contractor I'm not reading from anything that I created this is on the County's permitting website we are not misrepresenting to this board that we tried to pull permitting we tried to pull permitting the lift was an issue I'm also going to show you from the County's permit website from Bass an exhibit which is in permit number 22 BC 13847 that is the seaw wall permit what that says and what that is it says reflective tape will be installed on both outermost pilings at 8 in in width top to bottom tape will be installed in the middle of the pilings so they will be visible to all boat traffic does that sound like the pilings were involved in the permit I mean that is in the permit application so to to represent to this board that the boms did not ask for permitting for the boat lift is just it's it's it's inaccurate and it's not looking at the permit applications that were submitted so in any event um the the buom have done everything they can do to get this uh lift permitted properly um they are the defendants in the lawsuit by the way um they're not the plaintiffs Mr Guth sued the beom um and that case is pending and we hope that the the grant of this variance will resolve that litigation hopefully and so we are asking for your support uh to Grant the variance has been requested thank [Music] you with that all public uh discussion is is closed the uh Action Now moves to uh this side of the bar and uh and Mr chair I just want to make one other point of clarification um that the existing liation pvar county is not a party to that litigation so it really has no bearing on your ability to deal with the matter before you today so well I'll clarify what you said we take independent action here on what we find yes and without uh regard to the legal yes the litigation yes okay great ah so action moves to this side of the bar um Miss Clemens it arises in your District uh would you like to make a motion yes but I need help with how to say it son is a great help for you a okay let me see I don't even know if that's the right one I make a mo I make a motion to approve the survey as depicted um and provided by the applicant with the revision date of 9:30 2024 can can I just make a suest um what I would suggest the motion be is approval of the two variances as depicted on the survey she she will restate I make a motion to approve the survey of the two variances approve approval of the variant the two variances as depicted on the survey okay I make a motion to sorry approve to approve the two variances as depicted on the survey provided by the applicant with the revision date of 9:30 2024 do we have a second I'll second that okay we have a motion by Miss Clemens to uh approve the uh application for the variance we have a second from Dr Bass uh at this time we will discuss the uh issues between us and among the board um I'll let anyone no speak up Dr Bass no Sonia I'm Sorry Miss M that's okay um I I'll ask a question of you did did you get a resolution on your dimensions and how that all comes about in your mind it's it's a short answer really yes I mean I I I truly believe we're dealing with the distance of the old seaw wall to the new seaw wall okay okay anything else you've all made up your minds without listening to um these are never easy these are never easy um point so we're we're out to the six points then all right I will ask the um our honorable Council has asked me in the past and I would um reiterate it now that any negative vote I would ask you to point to which of these six influenced your decision um I think that's he's not his head yes yes we since the six points relate to findings of facts if you're voting against you'd like to know you know your we'd like to know your basis for voting against you know any one or more of the six uh findings effect okay and and in light of that I will I will poll us each individually for that vote okay the six criteria that special conditions and Circumstance ances exist which are not applicable to other lands structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant that gaining the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of the chapter to other lands buildings or structures in The Identical zoning classification that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of Rights commonly enjoyed by other app uh other properties in The Identical zoning classification under provision of this chapter and will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building or structure and that granting the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purposes of this chapter and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare okay uh I will I will go from right to left well I'll go by District um district one miss Mard how do you vote a or yay or nay yay yay okay um District Two Miss Clemens yay votes yes Dr Bass yes okay and chair I am going to enter a a negative vote based on the minimal or the minimum uh that can be done and also um injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and with that the uh application has passed uh and the variance is granted um we have a couple of uh announcements I have one ahead of time and then one afterwards um next month one of our housekeeping duties is to elect new uh chairman and vice chairman for the uh for the board and I had a predecessor here um I don't even quite remember his name but he was chairman for about five or six years and he began to think of it as a a legacy and and a right uh and when I was elected about three or four years ago as the chairman uh it did not go well with him and he resigned I have been chairman now for 3 or four years and I think it's time to pass the torch so I would like you to all think in your hearts about where you would like to step up I think it's time to pass the the torch yes I stay on the board but I would like to stay on the board as just a member not an officer so that's my announcement and Mr Mr B uh sorry Mr ball thank you Mr chair um I just want to let you know um I've made a difficult decision to leave County service it's been a pleasure to working with you all and Miss Clemens sorry we didn't get the chance to work work uh further but um I just wanted this I will not be here at the next Board of adjustment meeting so I want to say thank you and allowing me and my staff to support you in the great work that you all do so thank you thank you so on behalf of the board yes we appreciate everything you've done to support us here for the last and personally when I took over four years ago or three years ago I don't even remember it's been Jeff Jeff spent about two hours on the phone with me going okay this is what you should be doing and this is how that's interpreted and and it was a great help it was a great help so thank you all right uh go ahead if you'd like to say something before I adjourn yes go ahead I wanted to make a recommendation for the new chair no no no that's next month all right that's next month um okay well I declare this uh uh Board of adjustment uh meeting for uh December no I'm sorry yeah December 18th 2024 adjourned don't the opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of County commissioners of Bard County Florida Space Coast government television or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter the board of County commissioners of bravard County Florida Space Coast government television and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]