Variance Request (Consent) – Shaunna Mizelle – Increase in the Maximum Fence Height Along the South Front Property Line Facing Sea Ranch Drive from 4 Feet to 6 Feet on a Corner Lot in a R-4 High Density Residential District – Northwest Pasco County – On the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Melanie Avenue and Sea Ranch Drive – Containing Approximately .15 Acre
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with Conditions
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Sep 30, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Sep 30, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-21-2094 in full →Heard once. PDD-21-2094 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Sep 30, 2021PlanningPC1▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 13m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 85% of 86 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Planning Commission Members. Denise Hernandez, Planning and Development. The first item is item PC one. That's P D D twenty one two zero nine four. It's a variance request in the name of Shauna Mizel. It's for an increase in the maximum fence height along the South Front Property Line facing C Ranch Drive from four feet to six feet on a corner lot in an R4 high density residential district. This comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet.
All right. Is the applicant present?
The applicant is virtually present.
Is there anyone here to object? Okay, so you would like to have that poll from this consent agenda? You'd like to have it polled today so you could speak on it? Okay. We'll pull that one.
Right. Item PC two is PDD 212095. It's an alternative standard in the name of Snow Mountain, Screamageddon, Treehoppers. For an alternative standard from the requirements of the Land Development Code, Section 406.1 signs to increase the maximum allowable height of one monument sign from eight feet to 12 feet and increase the maximum square feet in sign structure area from 80 square feet to 104 square feet in exchange for an overall reduction in the total. Total num total signage on the property in an AC agricultural district. It comes to you with a recommendation of
approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet. And I will say that on this item, Mr. Girardi is has recused himself on this item.
Okay, and then is is there uh the applicant is present?
The applicant is virtually present.
Is there anyone here to object? Any objections?
Mr. Chair, could you vote on that one separately so so that Mr. Jority.
So um Can I hear a motion to approve uh PC two please? And I'll
make a motion to approve PC two.
I'll second that. Okay, so we have a motion uh on item PC two as submitted and um with the Representative Girardi with withholding. Uh abstaining. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed?
Following item is PC three, it's PDD 217554. This is a special exception in the name of American Homes for Rent, Bridge Haven Residential. It's for an amenity center in an R4 high density residential district. This comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet.
Any applicants present?
The applicant is virtually present.
Anyone here to object?
Pardon me?
Why do you?
All right.
Move on to item PC PC four.
Yeah.
And that's uh PDD 217559 in the name of Daveron LLC 8429 Land O' Lakes Boulevard. It's for a special exception for a professional services office in an R1 rural density residential district. Comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet.
All right. Is the applicant present?
You're the applicant? Okay. Anyone here to object? Say no objections.
Mr. Chair, I I I just have one quick question. I think it can stay on the consent, but It's if the special exceptions granted, is it granted just for this particular use or does it run with the property?
It grants it for this particular use that will run with the property.
Okay. Unless it's conditioned we have in the past approved some special exceptions that are limited to that. particular individual, but otherwise it runs with the land.
Yeah, this particular one does not have a condition that states it doesn't run with the land. We didn't think it was appropriate because it is in a you know retail office residential area. Um it's uh commercial corridor on uh 41.
Okay, I just wanted to clarify that's all. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. That concludes your consent agenda.
All right. Um then I'll hear a motion to uh approve the consent agenda as modified.
Mr. Chair, can I just ask real quick, do we have anybody on WebEx for any of the consent items that is not an applicant?
We do not have anyone on WebEx for any of the consent items that is not an applicant. We do have someone for PC five, but thank you for mentioning that.
Okay. Thank you. Okay.
Motion to approve the consent agenda as modified.
I'll second that.
Do we have a second? Any further discussion on the motion?
All in favor? Signify by saying aye. Bye. Post? Okay, motion carries. So we're uh We're gonna hear um PC one and PC three then.
So let me uh share my PowerPoint for PC One.
Yeah.
So that's the right.
Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.
Planning Commission members item PC one is PDD 212094. This is for Shauna Mizel. This is for a variance to increase the maximum fence height along the Southfront property line facing Shea Ranch Drive from four feet to six feet on a corner lot in an R4 district. The property is located on north in northwest Pasco County, and it's on the northeast corner of the intersection of Melanie Avenue and It's approximately four hundred and fifty feet or so west of Old Diggs Highway
and a little bit over five hundred feet from nineteen.
As uh stated, the incre it's for an increase in the maximum fence height from four feet to six feet along C Ranch Drive.
This is a site plan just basically showing the fence area as it exists today. It's a vinyl fence. Here's some photographs of the fence along C Ranch Drive. The current location contains a single family dwelling on a corner waterfront lot. There is a previously existing non-conforming six-foot-tall fence on the property that was removed. The fence was replaced with a six-foot-tall vinyl fence. The Land Development Code 1203.2 basically states that if 50%
or more of the structure value was damaged, it cannot be restored except with in conformity with the regulations in the zoning district, which require a four-foot fence. There was a Pasco County Administrator for the fence, and a final hearing has been continued to a future date pending the outcome of this variance. The traffic operations division has provided that the six-foot-tall vinyl fence does not obstruct traffic or visibility at the intersection of C Ranch Drive and Melanie Avenue. And staff finds that the applicant's
hardship is a result of staff site conditions that are not self-imposed. And uh the re the uh staff recommends approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet. And I'm here for any questions you may have.
Okay. So is the applicant virtually present?
Ms. Mm.
All right.
Yes, sir.
Would uh the applicant uh like to Make their presentation or would like to w wait until the we hear what the concerns are.
Well, I could wait for what the concerns are, but given the location of the property it speaks for itself because adjacent there are woods there where the homeless people have been
Uh
Okay.
that's why it's not a beautification issue. It was just a matter of conforming to what was previously there to be a in code. It is no no obstruction of the water view based on my roof line being so long. Uh and it's w it's it's one of its kind.
Okay. Thank you. Then uh you want to w withhold further comment until we hear what the concerns are?
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, sir. Yeah, sir.
All right. Well then that's what we'll do. Uh I think uh Was that the lady at the back had a question? You want to come forward and please state your name and address? And let us know what your concerns are.
My name is Christine Perez. I am the adjoining neighbor to her east side at [address removed]. I as well had a six-foot fence in the area when I moved in and bought the home. uh code enforcement came and when I probably six months after I put up the other side of the fence to make it match. uh informed me that it must be cut down to four feet or replaced or removed. At that time, verbatim, the code enforcement man told me that the county would come out and do
it and charge me if I did not have it done in 21 days. Here since I've been told by code enforcement that that's not true. However, my fence had to be cut down to four feet, and $2,000 fence, I was not very happy. If it's for safety reasons or reasons of the homeless, I believe that my property, which is the exact same property line that she's speaking of. Should be included. It's the same reason. I'm a single parent. It's just being a child at home. So again, same reasons as her, I feel like it should have been up. Hers
is in the front yard and the side yard. complete six foot fence all the way around. on the other side of her fence, where she still has five feet of property, has been left unkept. It has been overgrown. It's dead branches. It's out of sight, out of mind type of deal. and I feel that she can't see it and she's not cleaning it. I've actually had to pay her own son to mow that part of the grass. So I feel I should be included if it is allowed. I feel that it should be Each
end cap of that street should be allowed at that point. It should be Well,
ma'am, are you are you you're not against the variance then? You only want your own.
I'm not against as long as I'm included.
Okay, well you can't this this this board cannot just include you in this variance request. You need to file an application for your own variance request and then it would come back to the board
In the same situation.
The same process that your name was going through. You'd have to go through that same process. Okay. So you can f you can talk to Ms. Hernandez about filing an application for your own variance.
Okay. Thank you very much.
All right. Thank you.
Okay. Um Does the applicant have any comment there?
Probably nothing to add.
Oh nothing to add the The property has been very well maintained, as well as hers. And From C Ranch Drive there is no obstruction of the water view. And that's all I could say. I could I could upload more pictures. you know, showing that there's no obstruction of the water view, but this is a safety issue and this was an issue of a c a code enforcement.
And I I assume you'd have no
objection
to her having the same Uh exception.
No, no, no, sir.
Very good. All right. Well Then I'd like to hear a motion.
I'll motion to approve uh PC One. Second.
Okay, we have a motion to approve PC staff's recommendation or approval with PC One. Uh any further discussion on the motion?
May I make one comment? I would suggest that this yeah the lady who uh came up here w and uh requested at the same treatment as what we're voting on, that perhaps she seek or somebody provide her with some assistance in going through the process. That's the only comment I would make. And it's just a common.
I think and I think they certainly will. Um I think uh David, you s you steered her to the right person. I'm sure Denise would be happy to Make sure she gets what she needs to get that done.
Nope suggestion. Okay. So we have uh further discussion. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Motion carries.