Trying to call the meeting to order. It is 631. If we can please have roll call. Present Miss Rich. Present. Mr. Burris. Here. Mr. Grossman. Here. Mr. wood. Here, miss. Mr. Fuchs. Here. Okay Thank you. And if our attorney can please read the quasi judicial announcements and swear in any speakers this evening. This is a quasi judicial proceeding where the Board of Adjustment acts in a quasi judicial rather than legislative capacity at a quasi judicial hearing. It is not the board's function to make law, but rather to apply law that has already been established in a quasi judicial hearing. The board is required by law to make findings of fact based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, and apply those findings of fact to previously established criteria contained in the Code of Ordinances. In order to make a legal decision regarding the application before it. The board may only consider evidence at this hearing that the law considers competent, substantial, and relevant to the issues. If the competent, substantial, and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has met the criteria established in the Code of Ordinances, then the board is required by law to find in favor of the applicant. By the same token, if the competent, substantial and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has failed to meet the criteria established in the Code of Ordinances, then the board is required by law to find against the applicant if anyone's going to speak. If you could stand up and be sworn in, raise your right hand. I'll wait for everyone. Do you swear or affirm that your testimony before the Board of Adjustment shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Thank you sir. Okay, we are going to call our first application, which is. And before we get started, actually, we do want to make sure that we have notification that the public comment is limited to four minutes per person. So that and the second notification is, I am recusing myself. I've spoken with our attorney and our city staff, on applications, the second and third ones, number 24, Dash 26 and number 24, Dash 28. As I am friends and neighbors of both applications. So, miss Rich, our vice chair, will be stepping in to serve as chair during those applications, and we will call our other alternate Mr. Fuze up to. Well, he's sitting. Sorry. He will be stepping in. So we will have a proper quorum for both of those applications. So did I mess something up? No. Good chance I did. Okay. From, mine as well. Okay. And update Mr. Fuchs also is going to recuse himself. He's our second alternate I've referenced from application number 24, Dash 28. That family is apparently popular in town, I guess. So let's move on to application number 24, Dash 25, which is a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a new single family home. The property is located at 1660 Seabreeze Drive. If we may, please have the city, presentation. Yes. Okay, Ali Keen, planning and zoning department principal planner. The subject property is outlined in red here on the screen. It's located on Seabreeze Drive, the properties immediately to the west and to the south of the property are in the same zoning district of R 100, which is a single family residential zoning district. And then the immediate properties to the east of the site are in the R 100, a zoning district, which is also a single family residential district, the applicants are here today requesting variance approval to reduce the required side yard setback for the purpose of demolishing the existing home on the property and constructing a new home that will meet the current flood construction standards, the R 100 zoning district requires a minimum side setback of ten feet, with a total of 25ft for both sides. The applicants are proposing to meet that minimum ten foot side setback on both sides. However, they're requesting the variance to allow them to have a total of 20ft. This is a look at the proposed site plan for the property. Again, they're proposing a ten foot minimum setback for both sides of the home, so they're five feet shy of the total 25 foot requirement for both sides, for context, the existing home on the property is currently non-conforming. It has an approximately 8.5ft side setback on each side, so a total of 17ft, so although the request is non-conforming, it is, decreasing the nonconformity by meeting the minimum ten foot. There are a few considerations with this application, one is it is a nonconforming lot of record, as are most of the properties along Seabreeze Drive. It was originally platted in 1951, predating our current land development Code standards. It is non-conforming in lot width, it is only 71ft wide, which is four feet less than would be required if it was platted today, another consideration is it is located within a, within the flood zone. The property is in the a E11 flood flood zone, the existing home's elevation is only six feet, which is five feet below the base flood elevation, which is 11ft, the primary purpose for the applicant demolishing the existing home is to construct a home that would be more resilient in an event of a storm. So they would be required to build at least one foot above the base flood elevation and meet any other applicable flood construction standards. These are the review criteria, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Miss Keane. Does anyone have any questions for the city staff? Yes I do so in essence, the existing home right now has 8.5ft on either side, and the new home would expand to ten. So it would be would make it more conforming at that point. And then it would raise it up above the base flood elevation by one foot. We're now at six foot below base flood would have to be at least one foot above to meet the standards. They may be raising it higher than that, but they'd have to be at least a minimum of one foot, and that's FEMA. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for city staff? Okay. If the applicant is present would like to present. May come to the podium now. Okay. Applicant is not here if they're here. Oh, I'm so terribly sorry. Did you want to come to the podium to address any other concerns? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So is there any public comment on this application? Okay. And no other questions, comments, concerns submitted for or against? No, we do not receive any written comments. Okay. So then we can close public comment at this time. And if we can open up our board comments is any questions or concerns from the board? Okay. We have a call for a motion. I move to approve. Do we have a second? I'll second. All right I'm sorry. I'll second and roll call, please. Mr. wood. Yes Mr. Grossman? Yes Mr. Burris? Yes, miss Rich? Yes, Miss Turner? Yes Okay. Happy building and I will now turn it over to miss Rich for the next two applications. Thank you. So much. Application number 24, Dash 26. Variance to reduce the required side setback and to allow an increase in the allowable length for the construction of a new dock on 7.71 Chesapeake Drive, ask Miss Keen to please do the staff presentation. Okay, property again is outlined in red on the screen, this property, as well as all surrounding properties along Chesapeake Drive, are in the are 100 single family residential zoning district, the applicants are proposing to build a new dock on the property, and they're requesting variances to the overall dock length as well as the dock location, which is the width of the docking facility. The land development Code states that the length of a private dock cannot extend from the mean high water line. Further than one half the width of the property at the waterfront. This property has 95ft of water frontage. Therefore, the code would allow the dock to extend a maximum of 47.5ft, the applicants are proposing a length of 80ft, they're also requesting a variance to the dock width. The code states that private docks and boat lifts shall be located within the center one third of the waterfront, based off of the water frontage. That would require at least 31.7ft on either side of the docking facility, in order to be centered or located within the center one third of the property, the applicants are proposing to meet that standard on the south side of the property and then on the north side of the property. They're requesting the side setback of 21ft. The this section of the code also has, a standard that allows the dock dimensional standards to be waived if they provide letters of no objection from the adjacent affected property owners. We did receive one letter of no objection from the south property adjacent property, however, we did not receive one from the north adjacent property, which is why you're seeing this variance request today. And then one last thing. This site plan here is just showing you the existing dock layout on the property. So they're proposing to remove that and construct a new one. This is a look at the proposed new site plan for the docking facility. Again the overall length is proposed to be 80ft, which is this blue line here on the screen, and again they're limited to 47.5ft, according to the applicant, the main reason for the extended length is due to the water depth at this location. The Pinellas County Water and Navigation code requires a minimum of 18in of water depth for a dock, if they are building at the allowed length, there would only be about 12in of water depth, so the extended length gets them to that, minimum of 18in, the location again within the center one third would require at least 31.7ft from the furthest point of the dock to the extended property lines. The. This is the north side property line. This is the south side. I should have labeled those for you, but on the north side property line, they're only requests are proposing a 21ft setback, there is at least 31ft to the existing dock on the neighboring property, but again, it's measured from the extended property line on the south side of the property. They are exceeding the requirement and have a 35.9ft setback from that extended property line, one thing to note is this proposed dock configuration does include a second boat lift. If that's and that's on the south side of the property, I'm sorry, North side of the property, if that boat lift was removed, it would be compliant with that locational standard and be within the center one third of the property. This is just looking at aerial shot of the site. Most of the single family properties along Chesapeake Drive are waterfront, most of them have docking facilities. There are a handful that have more than one boat lift, but a majority do only have a single boat lift along this stretch of roadway. And here are your review criteria, and I'm happy to answer questions, can I just ask a clarifying question? Yes the review standards that were put in the packet, I know with the docks and the Pinellas County waterfront, there's some extra things. But for this evening's variance request, we're using the same criteria as normal, correct? Yes. It is treated like any other variance request. Does anyone have any questions for Miss Keen? I do, yes, sir, so you're you're saying approval for the length of the dock, but not approval for where it's positioned on the property? Is correct? Yes. Staff does have a the preliminary recommendation of approval for the length variance. However, we are recommending denial of the, the width just because we believe that the second boat lift is not necessary. Now that picture there, the left side is the south side or north side. This is the south side and this is the north side. Can you go to the picture? Picture like the satellite picture of it, actually let's go. This one's probably best. So what I'm saying North side, it's this property here. That's where the variance would apply to. And this is the south side. So the dock that's there now is in the middle about. Yes. Okay. About in the middle. Yeah. The survey here probably shows you a better this is a survey showing the existing dock. So it's about in the middle. What I'm what I'm trying to get to is the relationship of the, proposed dock to the other two docks that are on either side. Okay. Because I, I'm looking at mine. It looks like the property was angled, and I'm a boater, so I would want equal amount of space on either side of the dock rather than having one side be short because of the angle of the property. So I'm trying to figure out if the, length, the extra length is on the if it's going to make it more in the middle between the two, not between the two ends of the property, but between the two docks that are on either side of it. So I think that this drawing will probably help a little bit with this. So this shows the, adjacent docks as well and the distances. So these orange dashed lines that I've put in here are the extended property lines of the subject property. This here is the dock. The existing dock location of the property to the south. So it's approximately on that extended property line. So there's about 35 and a 9.9ft between the proposed dock. And that facility on the other side, the north side of the property. This is the configuration of the dock. And it shows there's about ten feet between the end of that dock to the extended property line. So between the edge of the boat lift and that dock, there's about 31ft. But to the property lines only 21. Can you get to that one, this one right here. I think it's a minute. Wait a minute. This area and let me just have a caveat to this aerial image. So, okay, so the existing dock there now is going to go. It's being proposed to go to the left or is it being proposed to go more to the right. I will I think it's generally in the same location. I'll defer to the applicant to specify the exact dimensions if they're changing, but I think it's approximately in the same location. It's just extending further out. But wasn't one side 21ft and the other side 30 something feet. The current application. Yes. And I'll let the applicant, explain. It's different because there wasn't a second boat lift. So if you look here on this drawing, these dotted lines representing the existing boat lift that they're moving here, and then over here is where the existing landing of the dock was located, which is moving here. So the second boat lift wasn't it wasn't a factor. So it wasn't as close as what it's being proposed. Okay. Does that help answer. Then the two boat lifts are going to be at the very end of it. They're correct. And is there any code situation in there related to two versus one boat lift, our land development code does not specify. It just refers to a dock as a docking facility, which includes your boat lifts. It doesn't limit you to one or multiple, and, you know, Pinellas County may have different requirements if, you know, it's feasible to have more than one. But our current code only has the specifications of location within the center. One third and the overall length. Mr. Burris. Yes. What effect will, can you go back to the picture, satellite picture this one here. Yes Once it moves out, to the extent that the, that that they're proposing that they need to do it, the house next to it. Look where the dock is. This one right here. Yes, because it's an angle on the property. So as that dock extends out, what will happen to that boat coming in on the existing dock of the neighbor? So the one thing I just want to point out about, and it's probably hard to see on the screen, these faint lines, the image isn't exactly proportional to the property lines and the aerial photograph, just because it's a 3D image on a 2D image. So it might look a little skewed here. Probably the best thing to refer to is the drawing that's provided by the applicant, which shows. So this is the dock. You're you're talking about. Yes. When you extend the property line, it looks like it runs just about along that property line. Looking at the proposed dock, they'll still have 35.9ft between those two. Facilities. And it's an extend out further than what that dock is. But if you extend the property line from the picture, you're right on top of the dock. The neighbor's dock. So if you extend the property line right there. Yes, right that you're on top of the. So that's where that's where it's hard to show on this picture just because the property lines don't exactly line up with the aerial image. So this is I approximately tried to draw them in here but it's not an exact image. So that's why we go to the surveys and the drawings. Yeah there is a curve there though. Yes it is. Yeah they're definitely all the properties are on an angle. Yes okay. So it's inevitable that whether it's 80ft or 75 or 60 at some point it's going to impede the neighbor's boat coming in whatever size it is potentially, yes. And I'll let the applicant kind of defer to drawing those extended property lines, I think you already answered this, but you got one approval and you didn't hear from the other person. Is that the South side you didn't hear from? No. It's the North property line that did not provide a signed statement of no objection, just the South property, which is the variance that the people are going to be affected by. Have approved it. Correct, no. No, the, the North property is where the reduced setback is the 21ft. We did not receive a letter from them. Okay, so that's so. So you haven't heard, approval from the people that at all, in fact, correct. Well, so for a dock length, you need to provide letters if you're exceeding that from both adjacent properties. Because in theory, the length is affecting both. Say that they were compliant with the length and they were only doing the side. They'd only have to provide the affected side. But in this case, the affected side, did not provide a signed letter of no objection. Okay. That's for the width. Correct Yes. Any other questions for Miss Keane? The way that you've requested, does that is it already two separate variance requests or is it obviously to go with your recommendation? We would have to split it. So, it's all under one application number. But there's two separate requests I would say to, to treat each of them individually. It does whatever way the board goes with. But I would, address the length and the, width. You can address them both in one motion. It's up to you how you proceed, but staff just felt the criteria was met for the dock length variance, but it was not met for the dock width. Okay. Thank you. I have a question, if I may. Yes sir. So when we're talking about, like, the dock and the ordinance surrounding the dock, I don't I'm trying to see in here obviously the from from your all's perspective, the boat lift is a part of that dock. It is not a separate those pilings are not separate and distinct from the actual dock. Right. So how the code is written, especially I have the language here. For the dock width, it specifically says private docks and boat lifts. It talks about it as a facility. So we look at, you know, the furthest that it goes out and measure from that point. Okay. Thank you. Okay. If there are no other questions for Miss Keane, I'd like to call the applicant forward. And if you'd state your name and address and share with us whatever you'd like to share. With them. Good evening. My name is Jay Little, and I'm here to represent the applicant. My, my company's JKL services incorporated, and I'm the contractor that would do the work if, you know, they can get the building permit, the applicant who could not be here does have a short statement that he would like me to read. Oh, with regards to my address, it's 617 and 625 Live Oak Street, Tarpon Springs, Florida. And the letter from the homeowner reads. Dear Tarpon Springs board members, I apologize for not being available for this meeting. I'm on the West Coast currently visiting family. My mother is undergoing various procedures and is not the greatest of health. I'm requesting the variance for primary purpose of obtaining a draft of at least 18in. Currently, I only own a Waverunner Sea-doo and even with its low draft, there are multiple hours that I can't leave a return. The plan is to install a composite dock that will last 50 years and bring value for my home in the neighborhood. I would then purchase a modest boat with 18in of draft from the main lift, and the other lift on the plans is for 1 or 2 sea-doos. My neighbors to the south. 767 Chesapeake approved the variance. Who are boaters with a lift, but unfortunately my neighbors to the north. 775 Chesapeake, who did not have a lift or a boat would not agree. The dock variance requested would build a similar dock to others in the neighborhood, including 783 and 789 Chesapeake, 783 Chesapeake Dock variance was approved in the past by our neighbors to the north, who don't approve of our variance. Now, I have no animosity towards any of my neighbors, and I just want to enjoy Florida's beauty. I think the new dock extended out to ensure 18in of draft is environmentally a better solution than if a resident struggles to depart in return. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Ken Sharp. Thank you sir. Any other as the possible contractor comments, you want them bad? No. The only other thing that I would, that I would want to add would probably be that we're trying to get how this process works. Is the city of Tarpon Springs building department issues a letter of no objection. If there is none, then we take that letter of no objection to Pinellas County water navigation. Who issues the permit this jurisdiction being out in the water is actually their jurisdiction. And in my opinion, it's kind of been a double taxation without representation thing with municipalities in the county for a long time. But that's another argument for another day. Once we get it to the county and they issue their permit, then we bring it back to the city of Tarpon Springs and the Tarpon City of Tarpon Springs issues their permit. I would also just want to say, with regard to, the 18in, I did walk that personally and that's the minimum length that we can go out and achieve that. The dock was previously permitted for a boat lift where it now sits, which is only out about 47ft. Either that was done in error or the sands have come in and changed that elevation since that dock was built, which is true. I have no way of knowing. And then the last thing I'd probably want to say with regard to view, it might be a neat to view across someone's property. And it's been my personal experience and I'd refer back to ordinance 9429, which is a Tarpon Springs ordinance from 19 1994. Excuse me ordinance. In 1994, which allowed swimming pools to be built a little bit closer to the sea walls. The reason this is important is that the city of Tarpon Springs and me personally, were sued by my neighbor that didn't want us to build the swimming pool closer to the seawall, because it would obstruct their view across my property. And it was determined in, I believe, in the courts. There's probably case law on that, that the right, unlike California, where you have cliffs to obstruct your view of the people in front of you, and here in Florida, your view or right to a view is on the property lines looking out and not necessarily across it. So that's about all I have to say on that, lastly, I do have one more thing to say. The, the boat lift on the south side in order to keep it or, excuse me, the north side, where the neighbor is not in favor. Perhaps you could put a condition on that side that he can only put the jet skis or sea-doos with the very low elevation, and it would be less apt to obstruct their view if you put that condition. They couldn't put a boat over there, and it would almost help protect the neighbor that may not be in favor. That would be my suggestion, maybe to approve the whole thing rather than half . Thank you. Does anyone have any questions, Mr. Burris? Yes, I have a question, the existing, dock is, eight feet correct width, no, the existing dock. I believe the walkout is four feet. And then the terminal platform would be 12ft wide. I'm not talking about the walkway. I'm just talking about the existing dock. Or the distinct. The existing dock has two widths. The width of the walkout is narrower. Yes. The portion through the mangroves is narrower by code. Four foot. It's the maximum width through mangroves. And I believe that that width of that walkout carries out the same until it reaches the terminal platform. Another thing that I may add with why the dock is, you know, where it is, and we propose to keep it where it is, is our method of construction is we remove the existing decking, the existing stringer system and the dock piling that's left there, the wood dock piling. We put a sleeve over the top of that and fill with concrete between the sleeve of the old wood dock piling and this PVC sleeve, which are very beautiful. These are these lasts for 50 years. That's what he's referring to there. It's a very environmentally friendly and sensitive way of building the dock, because the typical dock, when it's being replaced, they rip out all the pressure treated wood pilings which contain copper, chromium, chromium, arsenic by code. They have to bring those to the Pinellas County landfill, schedule an appointment, cut all the pilings into four foot lengths, and get it disposed of at the landfill. Now classified as, hazardous waste producer. If me as a dock contractor brings it to the landfill, I'm classified as a hazardous waste producer. The way we do it, we leave it where it is. We sleeve it in place. And any carcinogens that are trying to leach out. It's very similar to the Stauffer chemical plant with the cap and mound. We entomb it for eternity, what? I was heading with this question was this if the boatlift, the boatlift itself is 13.2ft. Yes, sir. And the proposed dock extended is going to be eight feet. Well, the total length of the dock is 80ft, not the length. The width of the dock at the end. At the end, from what I can read here, is eight feet correct? I believe it's 12, but let me find that drawing. I think he's referring to this platform here, excluding the walkway, it measures excluding eight feet. The total. Yeah. The total width of the. I see what you're saying. The eight feet is the distance between the walkout and the end of the platform. The total platform is 12ft wide. Okay No, what I was what I was thinking was this. To move the boatlift to that side and make the platform on the other side, make the well as it is now, there's one on either side. There's a boatlift on both sides of the dock as proposed. Would that alleviate the problem? If you switch them around, since you're building a new dock, it's going to be not as wide correct. The new dock going to be an easier, easier way to come in. I'm not sure if I'm following your suggestion. I'm sorry. That's okay. When the dock is out at 80ft. Yes, sir. If you take the boatlift instead of moving it to the end on that side, move it to the other side. Just reverse it. Well, he's got one on either side. And by rule, you have to have them on either side. They won't let you put two on one side. That's against the code. And the reason they do that is because you could wind up with three where only two is permitted. Okay All right. Thank you. Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? I do, yes, sir. So, are there any navigational? Issues with it being out the 80ft? Not in my opinion, no. If you look on the arrow at the curvature, if you were to take a paraboloid and extend the dock out, it'll it'll pretty much follow that curve. The there's another rule that doesn't apply here to the code. And the code is that you're not allowed to extend out more than 25% the width of the canal. So if you're dealing with some of these little canals, say, down on Woodcomb, there's canals that are 100ft wide, you wouldn't be able to go out any more than 25ft, and there's no way you could get around that, because by the time each neighbor goes out 25ft, it leaves 50ft of canal. Where here it's wide open. It's over 500ft across. So there's no issues there. You probably wouldn't want to be within the 80ft because you could run aground anyway, because it's not deep enough. It's not deep enough. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Burroughs, can you please go back to the site? Plan Yes. The boatlift that you have on the left of the walkway. You're proposing to move it towards the end, correct? That is correct. Okay. And also the existing dock that you have in the middle as it shows there. You're proposing to make a new one at the end. That is also correct. If you reverse that, put the boatlift on the right side and the deck and the dock on the left side. Won't that make it easier for the neighbor next door to move in to come in? That's that's not a bad suggestion, I would certainly run that by my customer, but that's not a bad suggestion. Of course, then we'd have to see if the neighbor on the left is okay with that or, you know, with that proposal. But the property, according to the aerial picture, the adjacent property is coming out straight with the your property there, the neighbor's property is the problem. Is that correct? The neighbor next to the boatlift that you have now, the north side neighbor is the one that's not in in favor of the project. The South Side neighbor. They signed off. Okay. You have no objection from them. Okay. And let me just be clear with the group too, that, you had in your earlier comments mentioned about views, property views and all that this, board doesn't you know, deal with the views, that's not a part of, you know, we've had to approve a lot of different things that other neighbors didn't like because they no longer had a water view, the issue with the width was not related to the view. So I just want to I just want to be all of us to be clear on that. And, the dock with finding granting the variance will not confer any special privilege. That is not allowed for other lands, buildings or structures and the same zoning district. No variance will be granted. That extends to the applicant a use that is not commonly enjoyed. You know, the fact that you have one dock that, you know, is. That would allow them use of the dock, you know, the one side with the width, were there other issues? Ali around that? The criteria piece, on the width in regards to the width, really, staff's just opinion was, the needed for the variance was due to doing a second lift on the on the other side, but other than that, no, that we didn't have any other concerns. Right. Okay Okay. Thank you for your time and being here tonight and for reading the owners, yeah. Thank you for the opportunity. And just one other thing I'd like to say is that I was hopeful that this could get the letter of no objection to the county to get the permit. County permit back here at the time that the county permit is issued, we can't start construction until a 30 day appeal period has expired. So we don't even know yet if the county is going to be okay with this. I'm just trying to get it there. So Right. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there any other, public comment on this issue? Yes, sir. Please state your name and address and that you've been sworn in. Hi. My name is Craig Lunt. I live at seven, four, three Chesapeake Drive, and I have been sworn in, I also live on this curve, to the process of length, 80ft seems reasonable given where he is, my dock goes out 42ft, and it's very tidal. In other words, I can't get out probably more than half the time, to the issue of North Side lift versus south side lift, I see the south side lift has no problems with the neighbors. The north side left seems to, you know, have an objection from the neighbor. There are, I'm sorry to contradict alley, but there are several docks that are by you that have dual lifts. They don't seem to compact everything depending upon where your property is within this curve, the docks can get rather tight. But we're a marine family out there. We know how to do things, given the fact that we're not looking at viewpoints and, and I don't think that having a lift for sea runners or whatever on the, on the north side would be problematic from a view point of view. Anyway, it's typical for our neighborhood. And as a matter of fact, if Ali can bring up the actual curve there, you can see just just two doors down, there's a boat and then there's sea runners on the other side and the next door down only has one boat. I only have one boat. The next dock down towards me has one boat pointed the other way. The dock south of it has two boat lifts. That would be the mechanics dock, it's quite usual for our neighborhood to do this. I know this is not particularly factual, but it's not particularly onerous for somebody to want to do that in our particular neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you for being here and your comments. Okay. Anybody else have any public comment? Okay. We'll close the public comment then. And any, board members like to discuss anything or have a motion. Yeah I'll just a little discussion. So from where I sit, people buy these properties, spend a lot of money, a lot of time. Waterfront properties don't want to have use of the waterfront. If there's a way that, in my opinion, if there's a way that I can help them utilize the property that they own and it's not hurting anybody else, why not? It's your property. You use it. So I'm looking at this and I'm saying that that existing dock there, it's not that dock's not going to be right there. It's going to be another 40ft out. So the navigational issues for the two neighbors are aren't going to be as bad as what that picture shows, because that dock is going to be quite a bit out more, it looks like that curve I think that that dock, I don't know, Ali didn't quite say that, but I think it's moving to the left a little bit where they're going to build it. And that would actually create more room there. So I don't I don't see an issue with it. Now, I know that the staff has you have 2 or 3 recommendations for denials. I know the first one, the number one at one in the preliminary staff recommendation, says staff recommends denial of the setback variance. I'm not I'm not 100% clear about the setback variance. The setback is the dock width, that's where staff is not in support. We found that I just lost my one. Is it the width including found that the three. Yes, it includes the. So we measure just for clarity. The dock, the width of the docking facility is from the furthest extent either side. So from this point all the way over here. So we look from this point to the extended property line and this point to the extended property line. Do we know what that total width is between the outer perimeters of the lifts on and including the whole thing. So it's 21ft from the lift to the all the way. In other words, from here, two lifts and the dock. How much how much is that, we don't know. 13. Well, it's 13 point or 13ft, two inches plus four. 17 plus 12, 30, 26, 30ft, 30, 38, 39ft or so. Is that correct? Approximately. Yeah. It's about 38ft. Yeah, 38ft. So I get a visual in my mind. Sorry, I'm not good at, on the spot. Math And then the and then the, the staff's reason for denials on there was the five questions that we're looking at. So the not been met, is basically because of the width of the of the end of the dock is that pretty much the reason for the denials? So, so again, for dock length staff found that all five criteria were met in our opinions for the dock width or the setback variance, we felt that criteria number one, two and four or I'm sorry, one, two and three have not been met, so criteria one, talks about basically a, you know, there's a physical hardship on the property that necessitates the variance. Staff felt that, a variance for the dock width wouldn't be needed if the second lift was not included, in the proposal for criteria two, talks about special circumstances peculiar to the property that are not self-created, staff felt that the addition of the second boatlift, when won, could be permissible. Was a self-created issue, and then criteria number three, literal enforcement would basically deny reasonable use of the property, staff still felt that, there's reasonable use of the waterfront property by having one lift and a dock. So that was staff's perspective of the criteria. Review Okay, all right. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other discussion? Would anyone like to make a motion either together or separate? I would, make a motion on application 24 Dash 26 for approval as requested. So that is to both. Both. Okay. Do I hear a second? Not hearing a second. Motion fails. I'll make a motion to deny. I'm sorry. It's closed. There's nothing there. Not entertaining anything else at this. Oh, I see, okay. No, no, no, I'm talking to the public, not you. If you decide that you want to, that's fine. He just can't. Unless you. Unless the board decides you want to open it back up. Okay, George, you can go ahead. He was talking to the gentleman out in the public. That's okay. I'll make a motion to deny. Do I deny what, George? The both? Yes or one? Yes The length and the width? The width. I have a problem with the width. Okay, so? So separate them out the. I'm sorry. Can. Are you making a motion to approve the length and deny the width? Correct. Yes. Just for a clarification. And do we need to do if he does that do we need to take it as to. No. You could take it as one motion. It's basically adopting the, recommendation of the city of the city. Okay. Thank you. George, do I hear a second on George's motion to approve the length? Various variants, but not the width variance. I'll second it. Hearing a second, could we have roll call, please? Mr. Fuchs? Yes, Mr. Wood? Yes Mr. Grossman? No, I'm sorry, I apologize. Okay. Go ahead. Mr. Grossman said no. Okay. Thank you. I didn't wasn't sure, Mr. Burris. Yes, miss Rich? Yes. Okay. Okay. And, the city will follow up with the property owner. Yes Okay. Moving on to, number 24, dash 28, long variance to allow a fence to be taller than permitted in the front yard on 728 Chesapeake Drive. If we could, hear from the staff. Yes Okay, this subject property is located just down the street from our last application, again outlined in red on the screen and all the properties as well as the subject property are within the are 100 single family residential zoning district, the applicants are requesting variance approval to allow a six foot tall privacy fence within the required front yard. And this is for the purpose of replacing an existing six foot tall fence that's in the front yard. Currently they are permitted to have a maximum of four feet in height, the land Development Code states that no fence, hedge, or wall shall exceed four feet in height within a required front yard, the R 100 zoning district requires a minimum front yard of 25ft. So essentially, any fence that's proposed within that 25ft of the front property line, which is the area shaded in blue here on the screen, is limited to four feet in height, so any portion of the fence that extends into that front yard, which is the fence, is the purple line on this, drawing is limited to four feet. The applicants are proposing to replace the portion here along, this part here in the front yard and then also along the side and proposing it all to be six feet in height to replace that existing fence. There is another portion of the fence which falls within the front yard, which is right here adjacent to the driveway, they're not proposing to change that at this time, so if they were to come back in the future and request a six foot fence there, they'd have to go through the same process, if the standards are the same in the code as they are today, just for some clarity, any portion of the fence that's outside of the front yard and considered the side yard, they are permitted to have a six foot tall fence, as it is. And again, the applicant has provided some notations on the site plan stating that they are not proposing to do any alterations to the fence along the north side of the property here, it's going to remain as is. These are some images provided by the applicant of the existing fence, the fence has been on the property since the home was constructed in 1973. It does match the overall design of the home, and there are a few segments of the fence that are six foot tall brick walls, which are a little hard to see here, but there's a portion here. And then along here. Those are proposed to remain as is, and there's no change, during the review of this application, staff received a letter from the son of the original designer of the home, and did state that the fence was designed to replicate the home's siding, and it was the layout of the fence was integral to the design of the home. This is a mid-century modern home which has a lot of, inside, outside, indoor outdoor connection for living. So there's large, windows along the front of the home. And the fence does provide some privacy of those large windows, even though there is an existing six foot fence on the property today, because it's being removed and replaced, it has to come into compliance with the current standards, which is why the portion of the front yard is limited to four feet and why they're here today requesting relief of that. Request, so they must come into compliance if they were to just go through the building permit process, the applicant has indicated that the fence through over the years, general aging, storms and flooding has really damaged the fence, which is necessitating the replacement. This is an image they provided. It was in your packet of the damaged fence. This is, looking at a pictometry of the subject property here, and you can kind of see the fence along the front property line, Chesapeake Drive is a residential street. There's a mixture of single family detached homes. There's a mobile home community at the north end of the street. There's also an assisted living facility, south of the subject property, this property, as well as the property across the street, are the only two properties that have a six foot fence along the frontage of Chesapeake Drive. However, it's important to note that the property across the street, that fence is set back 25ft, so it's not within the required front yard. So it is permissible to be at that six foot height by code. Another point, to for this property is, all the properties along Chesapeake Drive are a majority of the single family residences are waterfront properties, so they are subject to the same exact, fencing requirements as the subject site. And here are your review criteria, before I turn it over for questions, I'll clarify. You had several letters, on this application that I left at your at the dais for you today. We did receive one letter of support prior to the packet going out. So that was included. That was the letter from the architect son, and then we received two letters of support this afternoon. We did receive one letter of opposition, and we did receive a letter from someone that previously provided a letter. And they have retracted their comments from tonight's evening. So all of that was provided to you in advance of the hearing. And they were provided to the applicant as well. And now I'll turn it over for any questions. Thank you. George, do you have a question? Yes. The existing fence now in the front is four feet, right, it's six feet. Six feet. Correct Okay. Although it has to be 25ft back as an easement. Correct. Right. To be compliant, they'd have to be 25ft from the front property line. Is not part of this. In other words, how come it's not part of the application that we have to approve, that it can be done, that that is the request. The request is so within the 25 foot front setback, which is this blue area. A fence can only be four feet in height. That's the maximum. The code allows it to be the request is to allow within the front yard to have a six foot fence. So they're asking relief of that limitation . Okay Does anyone else have any questions for Miss Keen. Yes So a six foot fence would be allowed if it was 25 foot back from the property line. Correct. And how far back is the fence from the property line? It shows it's not the current fence is not directly on the front property line. I can't necessarily read how far it looks like it's set back. Maybe three, four, five feet, from the property line now, but basically the closest point of the house, which is right about here, is just about 25ft. I think it's 26ft. So that's the fence could be basically in line with the closest portion of the home and be six feet by code. So if the homeowner wanted to they could put a six foot fence, 25 foot back, they would just lose 25 foot of their back. Well, in this case, it would be their backyard. Their house is right there, right? Yes. If it was set back 25ft from the front property line, it would be permitted at six feet in height, with regard, we would have to verify it doesn't create any sort of site visibility issue, which 25ft back it shouldn't create that. So. So a six foot fence is allowed on that side of the house just further back. Correct. Well you show that on the map that that's their their house is at the 25ft mark, a portion of the home is at at that mark right about here. So the so fence would be touching the house. Oh, okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions for staff. Seeing none. Thank you, Miss Keen, do we have the applicant present? Okay. If you'd like to come up and share your name, address? For the record. And that you've been sworn in. Hi. I'm Terry Long at 728 Chesapeake Drive, and I swore in with everyone else. Thank you. I do have what I think might be important is the, request for visibility. The required visibility triangle. And I made copies only six, though I. Thank you. Thank you. And if you want to go, go through this so we know what we're looking at. Okay And I didn't keep a copy, but I know what it is. Okay. Sorry So the tape measure that we used shows as far as 18 foot back into the driveway from the curb. So even at 18ft back or even shorten the measure tape to 15 foot, then do 30ft out at the end of the driveway. We have ample visibility and there's no obstruction whatsoever to my neighbor on my right and my neighbor on the left and anything else thereafter. So the pictures just show how wide open that view is, and it's even farther than 18ft and even 23ft. So it's a very open visibility, and the road doesn't curve until further down a couple doors down, which angles off to when you start to come up to the nursing home. Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to share with us? Well, it's been a labor of love with this property, and we're just trying to maintain the integrity of it. That fence was there when we bought the property. When the property was built. The problem that we are experiencing and even our friends and neighbors that come over is once that fence started to fall down and become dilapidated from the flood waters and the storms and aging, it has impeded our privacy and our security. And with the activity on that road, there's a lot of road activity, whether people are walking, people are out exercising, getting out from the nursing home, our neighbors, we all walk on the street, the mobile home park. People are bicycling. I mean, it's an extremely active road. We're very exposed to that now. People actually stop their cars when they're driving by and just in the neighborhood, and they go really slow. And it's very uncomfortable because the uniqueness of this Frank Lloyd Wright style mid-century modern, it's entirely glass on the outer structure. So when people go by, they're looking in our home. I have to come up with blinds and covers to cover everything so that they're not staring us in the evening when they're going by or during the day. I mean, we bought this home ten years ago. We've poured so much money into it in repairing seawalls. You know, permitting and building and trying to restore this property. And it's kind of shocking that we have an existing fence of security and privacy. My dog would jump over a four foot fence. I mean, it just won't provide what we initially bought this property for ten years ago. So I understand we have to go through the process, but I I'm having a hard time understanding why we can't repair or replace what exists and bring back the beauty of this property and the privacy and the security that we feel we should be able to have as residents in the what we pay to live there. It's not cheap to live there. I mean, a four foot fence be a whole lot cheaper, but it just would not serve the purpose and the integrity of that property. And we're not trying to do anything above and beyond what already exists. And you brought up the fact about not doing anything on the left side. And our neighbors are actually here, and we would love to do that. But there's it's very expensive to even take on this challenge. It's not cheap to do what we're trying to do, but to not have a fence makes it unlivable and very uncomfortable. And at some point we will do something on the left side. But we want to restore the front of our house and the right side, which our neighbors have no issue with whatsoever. They can't wait till we put the fence back up. And because the way this house is positioned on Chesapeake, there's a weird angle there. So our visibility is the nursing home, a dilapidated home that is needs to be tore down. We stare right at that, and then everybody going by 24 over seven because the our kitchen is right there on that side of the house. We have patio structures on that side of the house, which is we consider our backyard. But you to go sit out there and enjoy our backyard. Who would have a shed in their backyard or their front yard. So this really to us is our backyard. Our front yard is waterside, where our decks are and our dock, and where we do try to spend a lot of time, but we also spend time on the other side. And it's very uncomfortable to be out there and people are walking and, you know, you're very exposed. And so we're I'm, I'm very hopeful that we can put back this fence, which, believe it or not, it is 23ft from the road currently, if you take a measure tape, which that measure tape that I provided you on that form is 18ft. I'm not even to the fence yet. So it is 23ft. So I really hope that everyone understands the importance of why we would like to have our fence back. When she sang 23ft is she? Are you counting the easement or like the road easement and the city is counting? A different starting line is I'm talking the curb to the fence. Yeah, yeah. Just for clarification, how the land development code specifies setbacks are measured from your front property line, typically a front property line is set back a certain distance from the curb or edge of pavement, which is the case here. So she's referring to measurement from the curb to the fence. Okay, right. So the 25ft for us is measured from the property line. Thank you. Yes. Is there anything else you'd like to share with us tonight? Oh, can my husband speak? Let's just wait to see if anyone has questions. You And then you can come up. Okay. Does anyone have any questions? Go ahead. Unless. Do you want to defer to the let the husband speak first, or do you have a question specifically to what she said? Well, I have a question for. For what? What she said, what the lady was addressing. Okay, let's take this question. We will get to you. Okay. Can you Ali, can you pull up that one context, one. This one. Okay. So that one looks further away than mine, the yellow line there. That's not the property line, right? That's the approximate location of the property line. I drew that on there just so you can. I like the property. Right. But it's usually just on the backside of a sidewalk. It looks like the curb is a significant distance away from the property line. Is that so? The property line is a setback off the curb. Correct. Which is very typical. Yes So for what the what the lady was saying is that the because in this picture it looks like that fence is quite a distance from the road. Yes. Correct. That's what she was explaining. That's the 23ft. Yes. Right. But she's taking it from the curb and now she is taking it from the property line , which is back further. Okay. I guess my confusion was I always thought that the your property line went all the way out. It does not. It varies. You couldn't use it. You owned it. But you couldn't use it. But it was still your property line, right, right, right. Yeah. It's and it does vary throughout the city. That's why your survey typically will tell you how far you are from Edge of pavement, generally if there's a sidewalk on the property, it's just on the back side or a foot from the back side of the sidewalk. But that's that doesn't go across the board. But yes, there's usually some distance between your property line and the edge of pavement. That is when public right of way. Because when I asked the question earlier and I said, how far from the property? You said three feet, I'm thinking it was three feet from the I see the road that the fence was three feet up to the road, but it's really 23ft from correct from the road. Okay Thank you. I just want to clear that up. Right. Thank you. Okay, sir. Your husband wanted to come up, so please come to the. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. You have to go to the mic. I'll go here. Okay? Yes, sir. Sorry. Just state your name for that. You've been sworn in for the record. Yeah. Donald de Baker. I've been sworn in for the record. Yeah. Just to address that point, you mentioned. That's what I wanted to mention. And not to mention we have existing walls that we don't want to mess with. The integrity of those brick walls. And so to move that fence at all just doesn't work with the, with the line that's already existing. That's well out of the way of the view of driving, on the road. That's it. Thank you, thank you. Does anybody else have any questions for the applicants seeing none I know we have public comment tonight and both for and against we're going to take those who are in favor of the application presented tonight. Speak first and just be reminded of the four minute public comment. Thank you. Hi. Craig Lunt 743 Chesapeake Drive, I think most of you here are pretty familiar with me. You know, I'm a rules based guy, I know I've worked heavily with our, planning and zoning department and to formulate some of the rules, this is why we have variances. So the fact of the matter is that they they've changed since the house was built in 1973. We've gone from non restrictive on fences back then to a four foot minimum, that has to be set back from the property line etcetera to, to be six feet. Unfortunately this is why we have variances so that we can accommodate these out cases, in this particular instance, this house was built in 73. It's a mid-century modern type of style house. And the architecture of the property is bound by this fence. It's part of the architectural integrity. And I think you heard from the son of the architect or whatever, but but I've done enough architecture involved things in my life. It's part of the integrity of that property, the fact that we could take this away simply because they want to upkeep it and keep it with the character of the neighborhood is somewhat inexcusable. Just just to consider the fact that, I mean, I know they have to go through this process. All they're trying to do is upkeep their property, it's trying to keep the character of the neighborhood the same, and I think the variance should be improved in this case. It's not a huge ask. It's not changing anything. It's not breaking the rules. I'm not sure who would be opposed to this, I can't imagine whatever reason for. But all these people are trying to do is keep up the property and just. I don't know if you know. And I mean, this property is kind of history within Tarpon Springs. The Georgios originally built this property in 73, our current mayor actually owned and lived in this property, since then, it's just part of Tarpon Springs. It's one of the reasons that when we purchased on Chesapeake Drive, we purchased because of the character of the neighborhood. And this was one of the contributing factors. So, you know, please consider the fact that we don't want our neighborhood to change visibly that much. I mean, we'd like that property that down the street to be torn down. Maybe but but that's a whole other issue. Anyway, thank you very much. I got a question. Thank you, Mr. Lunt. I have a question, sir. Are you mentioned architect for the attorney, though I'm able to question a public comment. Well, you I mean, it's usually a little looser, so you can ask the question if he chooses to answer. Thank you. Okay okay. You mentioned the architectural integrity of the property. We are not here for that. I understand you're not here. I'm just trying to make a point that from a neighborhood consideration, the architectural integrity of that property makes a difference to the characteristic of our neighborhood. Trust me, I was a commissioner for two years, vice mayor for two years. I know this town is all about preservation. We speak about preservation all the time. The preservation of the historical neighborhoods, preservation of the Greek town district, and preservation of the of the Union Academy area. But we also need to preserve other neighborhoods that are just as old, and we shouldn't necessarily change the character. I mean, it's a preservation thing just to keep the character of your neighborhood. You wouldn't like it if somebody came down. I don't know where you live, sir. I'm sorry. So I'm. I'm going to guess you're late here. You wouldn't like it if somebody came and knocked the house down next door and built something that was totally out of character with the rest of your neighborhood. Do the adjacent. Do the adjacent homes have any fences in the front? The adjacent homes do not have any fences. There's one across the street that's been mentioned. So if the adjacent homes have no fences, how can we proceed on this? Well for one thing, this home predates the adjacent homes by several several years, including the homes across the street, including the home across the street. Well on that, including the home to the north, including the home we can not consider. We cannot consider that you can go to the to the particular board that has to do with homes built in the early days. Let's remember, if you're if you're asking questions, just ask him the questions. The discussion is by the board. That's fine. So the home was built in 1973. The surrounding homes were built much later. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lunt, we have anybody else speaking in favor of the application? Yes ma'am. Please state your name and address and whether or not you've been sworn in. Yes. Carol Miket, 735 Chesapeake Drive. Tarpon Springs. And yes, I've been sworn in. Thank you. So I live, across the street and down one house, basically. Maybe two, because there's a park area. So I walk by this house at least twice a day walking my dog, and my dog, of course, stops and sniffs in their yard. And with the fence the way it is now. And if it were four feet, it's very, very uncomfortable. So one of the big issues is that the six foot fence is for privacy for their privacy. But I'll tell you, it's for my privacy too, because I do not like looking in their house because I can see directly in their house. I really don't want to see their business, and I don't want them to see my business there. The only house on Chesapeake that have that open format, right? It's glass. It's screen, you see, right in their house. I my house and every other house is a regular type of house. We have walls, we have windows. But you really can't see it. And we don't have that huge fence and we don't need it there. The only house on Chesapeake that really require that fence for privacy, not only for them, but for the rest of us. So I would urge you to give them the variance. And I completely agree with Craig about the architectural integrity, but he's already spoken to that. So thank you. Thank you so much. Anybody else speaking in favor tonight from the public? Please state your name, address and whether you've been sworn in. My name is Leslie McMurtry. I have been sworn in. I live right next door to Don and Terry. 734 Chesapeake. And we totally agree that they need that fence back for privacy and also for the integrity of the home that I believe that Eddie Hoffman wrote to the commissioners, his father built the home. It's windows everywhere and the six foot fence was part of the integrity to whatever treat that home, protect that home with all the windows. It's an eyesore now. Flooding killed us all, but it took the fence down and they're trying to bring it back to what it was. We have no objection whatsoever to a six foot fence. It will protect the house. Number one, and protect just the traffic going by our house and their house. Do not face their front doors. Do not face the streets. They face each other. So their frontage is not really the front of the street. It's both of our houses. But we have no objection whatsoever. And we encourage you to approve this. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Anybody else speaking in favor of the application for public comment? Seeing none. Do we have anybody present speaking against the proposal? We did have, one letter against that was asked to be read in the record because of the late arrival of the record. So do we have the person who wrote the letter present tonight? No, I'll have I'll, read the letter dated June 2nd, good afternoon, board members, County officials, regarding 728 Chesapeake Drive. My name is Tina Hinton. Address is 607 Royal Drive. Tarpon Springs. I own the property directly across the street from 728 Chesapeake Drive. I'm in strong opposition of the applicant's variance. Request I believe approval would negatively impact our neighborhood. Number one, the variance request clearly does not meet the five requirements for variance approval. Number two, the applicant mentions my six foot fence directly across the street from her fence. My fence was installed with a permit and it is in compliance with the 25 foot setback requirement. Number three, the applicant provided a picture with an arrow from her window to my property, where she claims there are farm animals she can view. That is false. First, there are no farm animals located on my property or outside the perimeters of my fence, parading around and running wild. Second, she wouldn't be able to see inside my property because I have a secure, solid privacy fence that was installed with a permit and meets all the setback requirements. However, the neighbor at 734 Chesapeake, last I knew had unpermitted chickens. So maybe that's what the applicant is referring to. Number four, this is a very nice community. None of the houses on Chesapeake have a front fence except for mine across the street. I have plans to remove my fence as soon as possible. I feel strongly that approving this variance would create a negative impact on the esthetics of our neighborhood. Number five, the applicant states the front of the property is the backyard and the waterside is the front. Isn't the front where the mailbox, front door and road access is? Number six applicant states that Chesapeake is a very busy road with crime issues. I disagree, the only criminal issues I have had, unfortunately twice, was a direct result of short term tenants. This has been documented with the city of Tarpon Springs Police Department number seven. The applicant states there's more traffic because of the nursing home on our street. I disagree, nursing home isn't that far down. Chesapeake so the applicant nor myself are affected by the traffic. Number eight. However, there is additional traffic because the applicant finished the second floor for two story garage she built with an apartment with a fully equipped kitchen. She's been operating a short term rental situation out of her illegal second floor garage. There has been a lot of turnover and traffic. I believe the applicant was issued a citation from the city of Tarpon Springs Code Enforcement recently. If the applicant wants more privacy and peace, maybe she should consider complying with the code enforcement. Stop renting out or legally converted garage number nine. This is a nice waterfront community. The people walking and driving on Chesapeake are mainly the residents and of good standing in nature. Definitely not of questionable character as the applicant has described in her attachment number ten, there would be a safety and security concern if a six foot fence was approved. So close to the road. It needs to be noted that only the only other six foot front fence on our street is mine. 607 Royal Drive. I have plans to remove it and not replace it as soon as possible. Although installed professionally, it with upgraded material, it's become compromised too close to the water. The flooding and storms have wreaked havoc on my fence and with the extra fence length of six foot, just couldn't sustain and is warped and bowed with the weight. The windstorms have pushed all the panels out of whack over a short amount of time. All the fence has become unsightly. I wish I had opted for a four foot fence at the time. Thank you for your attention and hearing my current concerns. Sincerely, Tina Hinton, 607 Royal Drive, Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689. Now that we've heard all the pros and cons, closing public comment, is there any board discussion? I have some discussion. So the five conditions, Miss Alley, so number one, we it number one condition was met. The criteria, review criteria and staff's perspective. Yes. Number one was met. And then number two condition has been met. Correct And number three and the number four conditions have not been met. But the number five condition has been met. So we're looking at number three and number four right. That's staff's review okay. And then number three is reasonable use of the property wouldn't affect a reasonable use. And excuse me, number three is reasonable use. And number four special privilege. So my comment excuse me, my comment is the reasonable use, I think it would, not having the fence would deny reasonable use because we've heard testimony and we've seen written, documentation in regards to the windows, which was one of my, questions when I originally was reading this that this is an older home and that style, you know, wall to wall windows, you don't want somebody. I mean, the privacy issue is an issue. I would have an issue with that if I were there, and I would not be able to, to fully use the inside of my home if I have all those windows, because people are looking in. So I think in my opinion, number three has been met. And then the special privilege on number four that commonly enjoyed by other persons in similar circumstances, if and I think that relates back to the to the window situation, again, it's not a special privilege to be able to use my home fully. So I would say in my opinion, I believe all five have been met. And you know, my comments are the windows are the big A huge issue for me. I mean, that's the style of the home, from the written testimony that that fence was incorporated into the style of the home when the home was built, that the fence was a consideration of, okay, this home is going to be this way. We need this fence, because that's the way we're building the home, it's not three feet from the road like I thought. It's 23ft from the road. So that's almost two car lengths from the road. I mean, it's not like it's that fence is right up against the road, and they're not trying to put something there that wasn't there before. It's been there for years and years and years and years and years. I mean, but part of the community now, I mean, like the gentleman said, you know, it's the character of the community. So it's the same. They're just trying to replace the same thing that was there before. So that's just my comments. Thank you, Mr. Grossman. Is there any other comments before I call for a motion, I have a question. The house was built in 1973. Correct Well, mine was built in 1978. Doesn't have any historical, value. I mean, where is all this coming in? What does it tie up? So that was part of the staff's review. So, you know, we respect the architectural design, everything of the home. We, you know, personally I think they're beautiful homes. But in criteria usually staff looks at, physical hardships based off of the actual property, not necessarily design, I will state, just so the board knows that if, part of criteria number one does have a caveat, that if it's if a property is located within the designated local historic district that can be viewed at times as, as a physical hardship, this property is not located within the boundary of a historic district. So it wasn't considered, but elsewhere for homes that fall within that, it can be a consideration. But again, from staff's perspective, the design didn't meet the criteria in our eyes. Isn't that something for the historical board? I'm sorry? The Historical Preservation Board. Isn't that something for them to permit, so this property is not located within the historic district. So the historic or Heritage Preservation Board has no purview over the this property. Okay, it was mentioned also, security reasons. Were there any problems there in the area that you know of, not that I'm aware of, and nor was it a consideration for staff of the request. What about the rental property over the garage that has no relevance to the fence request, if there are potentially, short term rentals taking place, that's a code enforcement issue and that's typically complaint driven. So someone would have to complain to the code enforcement department to do an investigation. But that, again, it was didn't have relevance on the, fence variance. Okay So basically because the fence was there was supposed to approve the fence and the city approves it. Well, that's that's up to the board to decide if it meets the criteria. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Sir go ahead sir. Got a question kind of weird. So obviously the fence got damaged by weather. Now it's down. If somebody had hit it with a car, would they have to go through this whole process again? There's. There's very specific requirements for so non-conforming structures or features in the code, usually if something is damaged beyond 50, it's, it can be reconstructed but has to comply with the code requirement because the fence is being removed and then replaced, it needs to come into compliance . If a small portion of the fence were damaged and it fell below that 50% value, then, they potentially could do maintenance to the to the fence. But in this case, because it's the entire thing being replaced, that's why it has to come into compliance. But it's not entire. If they're still tying it into the permanent more structure. Right. It's the entirety of the front of the, the wooden parts that's being replaced. If I'm correct, it's not the concrete and brick parts. Right. The majority of the portion being replaced is the wood fence. There are segments that are six foot feet a height and brick walls, but it's not the majority of the fence. Okay, any other discussion from the board hearing? None. Will I call for motion? I'll make a motion. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but I just wanted to put in there that in the staff recommendation. If the board does have an approval, we did have two recommended conditions to place, that is up to the board, whether to include those or not, I'll read those into the record. The first is, the fence must replicate the design of the existing fence on the property, and then the second condition was any portion of the fence within the site. Visibility triangle must comply with the requirements of the Land Development Code section 37, just to go off of that, what is proposed to be replaced does not fall within the required site visibility triangle, but staff felt that it was important to put that on the recommendation, say in the future they were to replace that part closer to the to the driveway. We wanted to make sure the variance was clearly not applying to that. So carry on. Sorry Just because it's the variance stays with the property for the life of the property. Right? Okay. Thank you. Is can I ask the owners a question that is up to the board? You guys mind if I ask them a quick question? Do you have any objection? No, I have no objection. Go ahead. So this fence stood for like 50 years, Mike. Correct. And it sounded like. And I don't want to. You were planning on building it as it was before. Okay. I'm good. I've repaired that as well. It's beyond repair at this numerous years. Yeah okay. Because of more than one party. So thank you. Okay, I was starting to hear a motion from Mr. Grossman. Yes. I make a motion, I do have one question. Your your two recommendations. I didn't quite get the full grasp of both of them. Can you just, you know, short synopsis of them again, sure. So the first one was just that, the fence design has to replicate the existing design, so the same design that it is now. Correct? Okay and then the second condition was just stating that the, variance does not apply to any portion of the fence that would go into this required site visibility triangle, and that's measured along either side of the driveway, just as I mentioned right now, they're not proposing to replace that portion next to the driveway. So what they're replacing doesn't fall within there. We just want to have it clear in the record in the future. Okay So I would make a motion on application number 24 Dash 28 to approve as requested. However with the two conditions that the Town Planning Board is recommending, be applied to it, do I hear a second? A second? Okay Roll call. Mr. wood. Yes, Mr. Grossman? Yes. Mr. Burris? Yes, miss Rich? Yes. Okay Oh. That's it. Okay. Just for clarity, Mr. Fuchs and Miss Turner are recused, so it's only a four vote. That's right. Thank you, thank you. And so you'll get with city staff, and they'll get you the paperwork you need to proceed. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. And thank you to the public for coming to our meetings. You're welcome to come any month you'd like. We're usually a very lonely group, so we love to have, resident participation. So thank you so much for coming. Thank you, do we now I'm going to turn it back to our beloved chair to finish us out for the night. Fantastic job, miss Rich. We get that right, I was no, I was just going to say we have we have opened up. I can't hear you opening on the board. I was just . Oh, yeah. Shameless plug. We do have an opening on our board, so hint, hint. Now, my neighbors don't like me again. Great. Thanks Okay, so thank you so, so much, miss Rich. Excellent job. As always, coming in as chair, the next item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes for our meeting on April 24th. Do we have a motion? I have a motion to approve. Second. I second it motion and a second. Roll call, please, Mr. Wood. Yes, Mr. Grossman? Yes, Mr. Burris? Yes, miss Rich? Yes, Miss Turner? Yes. Okay Thank you, do we have any news or comments from our city staff today? I'm sorry, I have nothing to share. What to share? Okay. From our attorney. Are you going to be with us for a while? No. Okay, fine. Easy come, easy go, say, lovey, the, Andrew Dickman, who is also, the city attorney with me, he will be here or someone from his office. They just had a conflict for tonight. If there are conflicts, it will be made. Okay Okay. Thanks for joining us. And do we have applications for our July meeting? Do we know about that just yet? Yes, we do have applications. Okay. I believe there's two. Okay. Any comments from our board okay. Thank you all so much for stepping up and being fluid and flexible as we had our unique situations tonight, if we don't have any other comments, then we will adjourn at 801. Good.