Variance Request (Regular) – Soho Builders/4537 Victoria Rd – Reduction in the Front Yard Setback From 25 Feet to 20 Feet and a Reduction in the Side Setback From 10 Feet to 8.5 Feet in an R-2 Low Density Residential District – South Central Pasco County – On the South Side of Victoria Road Approximately 215 Feet West of Sheffield Road – Containing Approximately 0.28 Acre

1:45:58So we're now moving on to P fourteen.

1:46:01Yeah.

1:46:08Fourteen or thirteen.

1:46:09What's

1:46:10important?

1:46:10Done that last.

1:46:13Bloom Divine Planning Development Item P14. Before we begin, I did receive three letters of opposition which have not been distributed yet, so I will distribute those now.

1:46:34So you need two motions.

1:46:43Motion to receive and file those.

1:46:45Motion to receive and file.

1:46:47Second. Okay, flavor? If we see um has the planning commission seen these letters?

1:46:54They have not seen them yet. So we

1:46:57do need the clerk pass them

1:46:59up if we could. Uh oh

1:47:01you got 'em over here? Okay.

1:47:04Yeah.

1:47:07Okay, I'm gonna begin here. Um item P D R P D I said Um twenty three dash two one zero three. Um it's in the name of Soho Builders, four five three seven Victoria Road. It is a variance request for a reduction in the front yard setback from twenty five feet to twenty feet and a reduction in the side setback from ten feet to eight and a half feet in an R two low density residential district. The subject site is located on the south side of Victoria Road, approximately 215 feet west of Sheffield Road.

1:47:40Here is an aerial view of the site.

1:47:44The surrounding feature land use for the site is Res 6.

1:47:49The surrounding zoning is R two. The subject site consists of a single family dwelling on approximately 0.28 of an acre. If approved, the variance request would reduce the front setback to 20 feet and the side setback to eight and a half feet and will allow for the issuance of a CEO for the existing residents. The subject site has a future land use designation of Res 6 under the comprehensive plan.

1:48:16On December 7, 2021, the applicant submitted a building permit application for a single-family detest dwelling. On December 15, 2021, building construction services marked the application with revisions and required the applicant to submit any new plans with correct setbacks.

1:48:35On December 20th, 2021, the applicant submitted a new, one new plan sheet with the correct setbacks labeled Site Plan Sheet No. A, and had drainage type B at the bottom of that plan sheet. This plan sheet is the only plan sheet with correct setbacks in the approval plans. On December 26, 2022, Building Substructure Services uploaded the approved plans. into the SLR record and that was stamped December 21st, 2021. Again, the

1:49:05only sheet in that plan sheet that had the correct facts were was the one that was labeled site plan sheet number A.

1:49:15In October 31st, 2022, BCS did communicate with the applicant slash owner that an as-built survey was rejected for not meeting the minimum setbacks, and advised the applicant slash owner to notify them that they would require a variance.

1:49:33Um if this variance sounds familiar is because Planning Commission did hear this on January 5th, 2023, and was reviewed for the same variance request, petition number 21001, and was denied by Planning Commission based on not meeting the LDC section 407.2.d.1. variance requirements criteria for approval. During that request, Planning Development Department's recommendation was to approve the variance request with conditions.

1:50:03This is what the site would look like with the variance.

1:50:08This is what the site would be without the variance request, meaning those setbacks.

1:50:15Plan and Development Department staff recommends denial for the subject variance request. Staff finds the reasons set forth in this application do not justify granting of a variance, as the variance application has not provided substantial evidence demonstrating that the request complies with all of the variance criteria that is laid out in the LDC. I'm here if you have any questions.

1:50:38Any questions for staff? Liam, was the applicant provided copies of these three letters or

1:50:44no? I believe they were provided with two. I received one of the letters before this meeting. So there is one. I believe that there might be an extra copy I can hand to him.

1:50:53If you could just in case they want to address any of what's in these letters, please do that.

1:51:01You might have a question.

1:51:05When we heard this case before You heard that they did a foundation tie-in survey and that Somehow the foundation tie-in survey showed that the house was built in the setback and nobody said anything. So how did we get here? How did finally somebody discover that the house was in the setback? What's the impetus for this variance request?

1:51:34So we do have our colleagues from the from Building Construction Services here who may better may be better at answering that question.

1:51:45Alright.

1:51:49Do you have any other questions for myself? Not yet.

1:51:55Good afternoon. Carla Garlock from Building Construction Services. Uh the error was just was discovered upon review of the Asvel survey.

1:52:06So there was an as built after the

1:52:09at the end of construction.

1:52:13That's it. That's it. I mean we did have the applicant revise the ac the original site plan to assure that he was meeting the setbacks.

1:52:24Okay, and then so then the next question that I would have is so and I know this the way I deal with Carla on a well we'll call it daily basis, but maybe every couple of weeks, right? Yes sir. Um so the builder uploads plans to Acela and then they get comments back through the Acela system, one of which was, hey, the site plan doesn't meet the zoling requirements. It has these setbacks, you need to submit a revised

1:52:55site plan. Meanwhile, somebody in the building department's reviewing the submitted building plans. Is there anything internally that triggers if if they passed if they failed the zoning review portion of the application, is there anything that says, hey plans examiner for the building, stop looking at this building until they revised the building dimensions?

1:53:19I would have to review when the building plans were approved against the date of the approval of the site plans.

1:53:27Okay. Work and any does anybody know were building plans ever submitted Yeah. would have fallen within the allowable set status.

1:53:42Um again I would have to do some research on that. I'm not

1:53:48I don't recall at this time. Yeah. Um

1:53:52Good

1:53:52afternoon, this sort of

1:53:53Amy. The

1:53:55I'm sorry I couldn't hear ya.

1:53:57Good afternoon. My name is Sesta Uliemi. Okay. The building official for Pasco County. So the plans are reviewed concurrently to save time. So they're distributed to both the development co-review and the plans examiners. So everybody does their review concurrently and that is to save time.

1:54:23Yeah, I understand that. What I'm getting at is what I can see here. Is the possibility that okay the whoever did the zoning review did their job and they flagged the flagged the site plan for not meeting the required setbacks. But if word didn't get to the plans examiner, then the plans examiner is down there reviewing a set-up plan for a house that doesn't fit within those setbacks. And

1:54:53I'm I

1:54:54make

1:54:54the assumption I don't know that that's probably what happened here.

1:54:58But what I'm saying is that uh each section is reviewed for different things. The plus examination we're saying

1:55:05the same thing.

1:55:06Okay.

1:55:06And so what I'm trying to ask, the next the follow-up question is So somebody flagged in a cella that the house didn't fit within the setbacks. Was a set of revised house plans ever submitted for a house that didn't fit within the setbacks?

1:55:28The point that I'm trying to make is the plans examiner is looking at the plans for Florida building quotes. I

1:55:35understand. I'm not saying you did anything wrong. I'm asking was a second or a revised set of plans ever submitted to the building department.

1:55:43So the plans is okay. The site that is not okay is what goes for revision and it's what goes back to the to colors group to look at the site plan and see if now ordinarily the site can take the s the size of the house is just the way it's placed on the site that doesn't meet the requirement. I

1:56:10understand but somebody submitted a set of house plans. We're talking about at one point this was a set I guess the setbacks would have required a seventy foot wide house and the plans submitted were for a seventy-three foot wide house and I'm only talking about width because there's some depth issues on this thing too for the moment. So somebody's looking at a set of building plans that shows a house is 73 feet wide. Okay, so was a set of plans ever prepared and submitted that showed a house 70 feet wide

1:56:41that would have ever fit within the set packs?

1:56:44I'm assuming that they said the plans that have been reviewed is the site plan. Because the plants examiner is assuming that what is looking at fits the site. That is the assumption. The assumption is okay, whoever they design.

1:57:03It's a yes or a no question. So are you saying that they did not submit a updated set of building plans showing a house with a width that would fit within the setbacks?

1:57:16Uh the plans that are submitted to the site, the site looked at it because they don't scale the plans. The assumption is that the design professional that is submitting plans knows what he's doing.

1:57:33Okay, you just answered my question perfectly. Thank you.

1:57:40Okay. Anything else?

1:57:41Seriously. Yeah. Perfect answer. Thank you.

1:57:45John, anything else?

1:57:49Okay, anybody else?

1:57:55Okay.

1:57:56We do have uh is the applicant present? When the applicant comes up he's been granted eight minutes time.

1:58:01Okay. Very good. Do you want to come forward please? State your name and address, please.

1:58:17All right. Uh my name is Patrick Plummer and I work for Soho Builders Residential and Commercial Party in Sync and my address is twenty eight oh one Durant Road, Val Rico, Florida, three three five nine six.

1:58:32Okay.

1:58:34So um I did prepare a PowerPoint um in our first

1:58:41Variant hearing Uh we honestly did not come prepared. Um we were we were told by Pasco County that they were appro you know, m moving for approval and that it would be basically be we were pretty much assured that it would be passed. We did not know I mean, well, they don't they said they don't guarantee it, but they had not seen a disapproval on something like this in the past. So We did not know there was going to be opposition to

1:59:11it. We had um reached out to the neighbors, but they did not reply to us. And when the hearing did start, um The reason we reapplied obviously is to try to get the variance, but it seems like in that original variance hearing there were some things said that were not accurate. Um and so I brought this PowerPoint in order to try to clarify those things and provide the actual evidence to demonstrate that the things that were said were inaccurate. Um Seth

1:59:42Weightman Let's see. How do I okay. Um in the previous meeting it was brought up at the beginning that our engineer of record was not qualified or certified to do building plans. He is present. His name is Mario Pada. And um he is qualified to do plans. Um There was a report done to Tallahassee to the Board of Engineers in an attempt to report him for not being qualified or certified. And

2:00:12he did receive that report and contacted them and they did verify with him that he is in fact certified and qualified to do plans. And there was no issue with him doing the plans. Um

2:00:25and uh Sir can I just yes could I help you out here? This is not a licensing hearing. I want to be clear with you. Correct, but at

2:00:32the beginning of the last hearing um there

2:00:35may have been some discussion about that issue, but your job is to demonstrate that you comply with the variance criteria in the land development code. Whether somebody has a license or not is not Listed in our variance criteria.

2:00:49Okay.

2:00:50So I think you need to focus on the criteria in the land development code. Okay. And we're staff's analysis of your crit the criteria in the land development code.

2:00:58I just thought that the opening of the last hearing unduly guided the rest of the hearing, but I'll move on. Um

2:01:04I'm not sure that's accurate because the Planning Commission voted to deny because you didn't meet the criteria in the land development code.

2:01:10Okay.

2:01:10Regardless of what other testimony may or may not occur. So you need to focus your your burden of proof is demonstrating you meet the variance criteria.

2:01:19Okay. So um when the original plans were submitted to the county, they did have a 20-foot setback in the front and eight and a half on the sides. During the permitting process they did reply back and say that they didn't meet the setback requirements. and new a new site plan and new plans were submitted and the process that this is done When you go to submit them, you are presented with a screen that you upload the plans and you match

2:01:49each page to the previous page. So it's not uploaded as an attachment. It's a f and it's a process. And those were uploaded. The engineer who's present today, um, he did create a new set of plans. And he did a lot electronically seal them and they were uploaded to the website. What we can understand is how Pasco County, when they went to review it, how out of twenty six pages, only one correct site plan was included in that packet. along with the other twenty five

2:02:20previous documents. They were all approved. Once those documents were approved We got a notice that it was approved. The file was downloaded. Admittedly, nobody went through the approv the documents that were approved to see if they were wrong. That's it's not common that we would assume that they're the wrong set of plans if they're approved by the county. They were emailed to the survey company. I have the survey representative here. The survey company

2:02:50went out to do the stakeout and to lay out the house. In discussions with them, it turns out that when they had these twenty six pages, they did notice that one of the pages uh did not concur with the other twenty five. They assumed that one page was the mistake and the twenty five were correct. So they proceeded without communicating to us to lay out the house. We proceeded to get an inspection at that point once we had done the footers. And during

2:03:20that inspection

2:03:24The first inspection failed and the the comments were not related to the size of the house. It had nothing to do with being in the setbacks. It simply said that interior it said interior footer not to plan, ran short where required, and installed where not required. This had to do with the dividing wall between the garage and the house. So In the previous testimony by the homeowner who came, who lives on the right, she said that She chopped off the rest

2:03:54of that inspection and only put there interior footers not to plan. So she misguided this commission by making it seem like we failed an inspection, we knew we were building the wrong house at that time and that we sh and that we willfully continued. And that's not the case. When the inspector showed up to inspect The light. An entire set of plans was on site with the correct Site plan, one copy, two incorrect copies of the site plan. All three approved by the County.

2:04:25All stamped and approved and I have a complete set here print. Along with the other twenty-three pages in the set, all of the 73 foot house, all approved. So when the inspector showed up, he was checking the The footer is based on the plans approved by the county. Once we got past the footers before pouring the slab um we had to get a s a tie-in survey. So we called our surveyors back out. They performed a tie-in survey. We uploaded it. We printed it, put it on site. The inspector,

2:04:55Mr. Switzer, came out and once again inspected it and verified that the tie-in survey was correct and we were allowed to proceed. So this was yet again a mistake. Um it should have been caught at this time when we uploaded the site the tie-in survey, someone at the county could have also noticed we were outside the setbacks. Nobody caught at that time either. Neither did we. We proceeded to finish the house and once the house was completely done we went to pay our CO fees and we submitted the as built. And apparently because this is a separate

2:05:26department, not the permitting department, who checks just the as built, they then caught that we were in the setbacks. So this was a bona fide error. Mm-hmm. We did not intentionally build a larger house. We did not try to circumvent anything. The lot is Big enough that the house could have easily been five feet back. And it's big enough that we could have added a thousand more scre s square feet of living space. It wasn't we didn't build to the maximum.

2:05:56We didn't It was simply we submitted the plans, the wrong plans were approved, the document evidence shows that. Nobody caught this to the end. And unfortunately in the last hearing there were other comments made from the apparently the neighbor's testimony that when she looks out her window And her view is of a wall. Um that she can't see the park down the street. You can see that flagpole That's in

2:06:26the park. So

2:06:31What we did was a study of if the house were set back five feet Would she be able to see the park and she can't? Also, we reached out, we did finally get a hold of them and we did a we did offer to turn the garage into a carport. um their response was they wanted thirty thousand dollars to r to remodel their kitchen. We tried to work something out and say, well we'll give you a ten thousand dollar landscaping package on top of the cardboard. And Basically what their response was we just

2:07:01want fifteen thousand dollars. So um on top of that, it seems very hypocritical that they are actually opposing this given that they have an illegal addition in their house. And they have a shed. that's actually exactly on their on the setbacks of their property. So this shed right here on the right is actually on the fence of their property. So they're in violation of their of the very rules they're protesting that we

2:07:32that we

2:07:33are in in error, sir, that one of the Planning Commission members asked you a question. He asked, Who are you talking about? Uh the neighbor at [address removed]. Which um Do we have the name of that person? Because we have some letters up here, I'm not sure. Rebecca

2:07:47McCone. Which also um we just discovered today that Rebecca Macon who's presenting herself as the homeowner does not in fact live at the house. She lives four minutes away, she has a different residence. Um in fact we're we're not understanding

2:08:09I'll make the assumption that all of these things you all take these at face value. How does this justify your house not meeting the required setbacks?

2:08:23Okay.

2:08:23Um the How does a violation on this property justify one on yours?

2:08:30Well, it it it doesn't justify as ours. I believe it just mitigates her testimony that if she's gonna come and claim that We are in violation of setbacks and she's upset about it. She herself sh as a as actually a licensed contractor. should not have an illegal addition built on her house have vehicles stored in her yard contrary to HOA rules because she complained that we're not following the HOA rules. She also stated incorrectly that we had not applied to the H WA for permission and I brought my realtor

2:09:00who filled out the application The HOA actually approved the house with the 20-foot setbacks and the eight and a half foot setbacks. And obviously the reason is the first set of plans that was generated had those setbacks. So the HOA has already approved these setbacks. They're also In a last case scenario, if the setbacks as it is will not be approved, we are proposing an alternative solution of don't turning the garage into a carport. We take the garage doors off, we remove The first five feet of the wall leave a column, and

2:09:30now we're not obstructing her view. We reach out to the neighbors and asked Hey, can we do a carport and do some gardening, $10,000 in gardening? Their response was they're gonna block up the window anyway and remodel their kitchen. They don't want This turned into a carport. They don't They don't care about the gardening or the carport. they want fifteen thousand dollars. So it seems a little hypocritical that they're violating the rules themselves while calling us out on a rule That we didn't violate intentionally. We didn't build An additionally

2:10:00issue the citation to you. The building department issued you the citation or or refuses to I don't know whether they're refusing to give you the C O for the house, but they've indicated that this house doesn't meet the required setbacks and that you need variance.

2:10:14Correct. And they said it's

2:10:16what I'm trying to figure out is what what does her property have to do with justification for a variance for yours?

2:10:22In the la as I recall in the last meeting it was indicated that it was exactly her unhappiness about seeing the wall. that swayed the test the opinion of the board here. So that's why we came prepared to ex explain these things we've discovered about our neighbor who was protesting this. So where apparently had she not protested this, it would have been approved.

2:10:43Well, sir, the reason I asked whether you got these other letters is because You keep talking about Miss McCone's property, but there's other letters from Looks like the Maringiellos and maybe others. Do you have similar evidence that There's any problem with their testimony?

2:11:06Yes, they are actually close personal friends of hers. She um actually spoke to them and asked them to write those letters. Also um separate from that um In this neighborhood, the H O A rules state that the average setback in the front must be twenty five feet. And I've printed a copy of the plans to show that we meet we are well within that 20 feet average, 25 foot average in the front with the HOI. In fact, only

2:11:3620 feet of the house in the front. Of 73 feet are actually within in the 25 in a 20 foot setback. Twenty two feet are I'm sorry, uh Fifteen feet or twenty-two feet back from the street. and all the remaining frontage is between 24 and 36 feet from the street. So it's actually only a 28 foot section of the garage that's even in the seven.

2:12:10So as far as the HOA is concerned, also um in the neighborhood for meeting similar homes The house to the left of ours actually we measured from wall to wall between our two houses and there is only 17 feet meaning they also have an eight and a half foot setback on the side. And I pointed that out to Liam. That's something that's verifiable through the map data.

2:12:35I can answer that question. That house was built in 1978 before we had a building department.

2:12:41I was looking for those plans to find out why the apparently the setbacks might have been different back in the days because I did walk that entire street. And it seems like nearly every house built prior to 1986 all has less than eight and a half foot setbacks. So as it stands, the house itself is not like a glaring violation. It doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. it actually improves the pro the property values of the neighborhood. Uh we do have a disabled or retired.

2:13:12veteran. It is currently under contract. His house is up for sale and he is hoping that this gets resolved in time for him to sell his house and move into this one. Um And You know, we're hoping that because the house at the current sale value of five hundred ninety-nine thousand actually brings up the property values. Every single homeowner in that neighborhood's property values will rise about twenty percent.

2:13:44Yeah. it seems like we're speaking all around uh the actual problem without getting to the me the the the heart of the matter so uh you know and I think we've been trying to bring you back to the center over and over now. Rather than talking about somebody else's property we need to talk about your property and find and decide whether your property is if your request for a variance for your property is a valid request.

2:14:15not about the neighbors. They're not here for hearing now. Okay. If uh you know if they're here for a hearing at some other date that would be something else because I think we're just muddy in the water with all this conversation about other people's properties.

2:14:30Okay, I apologize for that.

2:14:33Okay. So we can get to the end here.

2:14:35So then I would say that um The original plans were submitted. We were told to do a revision. We did a revision in good faith. We submitted a revision. The Pasco County committed the error in approving the wrong set of plans. Um that's what triggered this. We have no intent and no desire to be here today and have this issue with building a house. It doesn't benefit us the way the house was built. We didn't circumvent some rule The

2:15:05house could easily have been five feet back. Nothing stops it from happening. There's plenty of rear yard. There's fifty feet. The we in fact did a revision. W I paid the architect to do a revision. We did submit it. It was signed and sealed and submitted. the county approved the wrong set of plans.

2:15:24Sorry, can I ask you a question? Because you keep saying The county approved the wrong set of planets. But you've acknowledged there was at least one of the things that we have to do. Part of the approved plan set that have the correct setbacks, correct? Correct. I brought a complete set of things. So you keep saying they approved the wrong set of plans, so But if there was at least one page that had the correct setbacks, why you s Why was it wrong? 'Cause there was at least one page that was correct, right?

2:15:52So out of oh I let me see if I can get which page this is. Let's see here. So essentially the reason the exact reason that it was not discovered And I'll bring this back to the right slide.

2:16:14was because

2:16:17I heard okay. These are the three pages that are approved in the count. for the site plan. So the only page in the entire plans that is correct is the one on the right up here. So the county u has three stamped approved site plans. you'll notice that on the third one at the bottom it says drainage type B. So what happened is When the survey company went out. They had three d they had three

2:16:47copies of this document all approved and I have the representative here today. He assumed that the first two say site plan and they match all the rest of the plans. He sees the third one that says drainage type. So he does not assume that the one that's labeled drainage type is the site plan he should use to stake out the house. And he did not look at all three. to see if they all match each other, because it no one's assuming there's a problem here. No one's

2:17:18looking for a problem because they're all three approved. So he's looking at that there's three documents. Two of them say just site plan. One of them and w in fact one is sa well the first one in fact says drainage approved by El Moody. But out of the three only one says drainage type at the bottom. So He's here today to explain that when he saw us say drainage type, he grabbed one of the other two and laid out

2:17:43the house. The person who actually was constructing the home.

2:17:47the person who actually did the survey. Who actually laid out the house? The And

2:17:53that

2:17:54you're

2:17:54saying

2:17:54that's a different

2:17:55person

2:17:55than

2:17:55the

2:17:55person

2:17:55that submitted the

2:17:56plans? Yes. The the person that laid out the house on the property, that's a survey company you hire to perform a layout.

2:18:04Okay.

2:18:04Who prepared the

2:18:05plan on

2:18:05the right?

2:18:07Who

2:18:07prepared that plan? Mr. Mari Opana.

2:18:09He's here today.

2:18:14When the plans stamped approved plans came back, did Mr. Pour a look

2:18:18at 'em. They don't go back to

2:18:20him.

2:18:21Uh the county approves them and they become part of the record as approved. And then I as an employee of the builder, I just downloaded the file that was approved online. And I emailed that and I have that here actually proof of my email to the survey company where I attached the survey to the email, uh well not the survey, uh the entire plans. They require the whole plan set. So I didn't single out any files. I just

2:18:51does the engineer record when he does the as built who who sends in the as built? Is that the engineer record?

2:18:57No. Um as a builder we contact the survey company again through email. We say, hey, we need an as built. They perform the as built. It's sent back to us.

2:19:06Is there a certification that on the As built that it's in accordance with the approved plans?

2:19:12Um in the Asbuilt package what we do is certify that uh that you know things like drainage, um, those sort of things are.

2:19:23I'm asking did anybody in the process certify that the construction was in accordance with the plan on the

2:19:30right? No, because again, when we email this to the survey company and they generate the as built, they're also again with the plans in their possession, they're using one of the two other sheets and their explanation why they did that was because

2:19:48I'm not asking what sheets got used. I'm asking did anybody certify Did the construction was the on the ground construction Was it consistent with what we see right in front of us right now?

2:20:01It it was signed that it matched One of the other site plans, yes. Because that was what was coming.

2:20:10I'd have to I'd have to go and see who um Who prepared that document?

2:20:16Is it someone with the survey company or someone with the with the builder that certifies that?

2:20:21It's so when When you say certified I believe somebody in our company would get the docu like the As bill back from The Um from the survey company and attach it to an application saying this is our ass built. But that that would not entail submitting a copy of that third page or I believe either one of the any of these pages with it. It's an as built that's prepared by a survey company. And it goes

2:20:52with an application that fills out that this is the As built. And here's the As built page.

2:21:00Can I ask you a question?

2:21:01I'm not sure you're answering my question. I might need to ask Doc this question because I'm not sure you're answering my question.

2:21:07So so the initial site plan we're doing with the initial building plans, correct? The the original Um site plan that had the wrong setbacks. Correct. And that a comment came back and then who revised the site plan to show the correct setbacks?

2:21:25The r the site plan and the entire set of plans was completely revised and resealed by the engineer. And it was resubmitted to Pascoal County. Okay, so then

2:21:34you got the approved set of plans.

2:21:37Back

2:21:37from Pasco. Can you provide the approved set of plans to your surveyor to go out and stake out the house? Correct. Were they provided with CAD files of the approved site plan or did they do it off of one of these three PDFs? Who who sent the surveyor the approved site plan? So they could stake out

2:21:54I actually sent the email myself and I have that um here and w the email that is sent to them is a complete copy of the file that's downloaded from Pasco County.

2:22:06So so your surveyor staked out off the PDF? Yes.

2:22:10I can ask him. Uh he doesn't speak uh English, but yes, generally he opens up the plans on a tablet. and goes out there with GPS equipment. I've seen them do it. not specifically this house, but they Um the plans are also in a usually in a plan box, but they do open it on a tablet that they have on hand. and they they look at the the details on in the plans that they have and they lay out the house.

2:22:39Okay, 'cause I've I've been in I've been doing engineering in this area for twenty years and I've never had a surveyor stake out off a PDF. They always ask me for the CAD files. That's why I asked that question. Who gave them the CAD file of the approved site plan? And we

2:22:52have been working with um

2:22:54I think here I think he's just asking another question.

2:22:57Okay, so uh that's what I was answering. We have never provided a cat file to them, to global project management. Not ever, not one time. All we and I could I could easily show you the last uh fourteen houses that we've been participating in building that with no issues. Every single email is only of the PDF file. We never provided the cat file. When they stake it out, they're just looking at the the setbacks. You know, in the four corners of the house and Um and they I'm

2:23:27not sure why they require the entire set of plans that shows every other page, but they do. And I do have the gentleman here from the survey company who expressly says that uh for some reason when he was out there doing the layout He did notice out of twenty six pages one was wrong. In his mind the one was wrong because the all twenty five other pages were congruent. They were all the same. They all matched. So I wish that day he had called us? And

2:23:57said, hey, why is one page out of twenty six not the same? But he didn't. And uh and he's and he also states because it said drainage plan B on it, he didn't use it as the basis of his work.

2:24:10So my question I was trying to get at is and maybe I need to ask the engineers on the Planning Commission. Is there any duty for the engineer who prepared the plans, when these stamped approved plans come back, is there any duty for the engineer of record to look at them again. At any point in the process after the Stamp plans come back because it appears the error here was that The engineer record clearly knew what the correct setbacks were 'cause he submitted

2:24:41the Plans with the correct setbacks. What I'm hearing is that those in the allegedly incorrect plans so because one of them had correct plans on them that those went directly to the surveyor and the b and the actual builder without them ever going back to the engineer record to see if they were correct and I I'm asking is that a common practice or is that

2:25:03who uploaded the plans the original building plans to a cellist? Did you engineer do that or do you do that?

2:25:12Um so the first time they were uploaded it would have it it was a draftswoman who works for the engineer. And we interface directly with her.

2:25:23Okay, and then when there you said that you you said that the plans were revised to make a house that fits within the setback who uploaded those plans?

2:25:32I was sitting with the draftswoman and I and we did it together. I was present. Okay. I

2:25:38I personally So you had a set of drawings of a house that fit within the setbacks.

2:25:48Electronically.

2:25:49Oh oh nothing.

2:25:50Yes, not

2:25:51product and paper. You had a set of plans that showed a house that's fit the setbacks.

2:25:54Correct. And I sat in front of a computer and uploaded

2:25:57it.

2:25:59Regardless of what plan came back stamped from the building department, you didn't know that those didn't match those plans? That is pretty easy to look at the dimension across the front of a house and see whether it says seventy-three or seventy.

2:26:11I guarantee you moving forward when a building department approves a full set of plans.

2:26:19Right, but but I had no reason to review if it was Yeah. the smaller

2:26:25set of plans. I had no reason to be a licensed contractor.

2:26:29no. I work for a licensed contractor. I'm an employee. Does the licensed contractor have an obligation to know what you're building? So you see, I don't wanna confound the fact that if the county approved the plans Дер газ невер би a suspicion that what is approved is not correct. It's not something that you're saying

2:26:51is you at one point had the correct set of plans in your hands. You knew.

2:26:56I didn't I had a PDF and I did upload it And it was uploaded.

2:27:01They were asked someone asked for the plans to be revised because a comment came from the building department that the house shown on the site plan did not meet the setbacks. So somebody directed the engineer to make a new set of plans. So at some point somebody knew, I don't know whether it was you or your boss or the general contractor or the threat, somebody knew at your organization.

2:27:22But the assumption that once we knew that. this and we did diligently get it corrected and we did submit it. The assumption that when Pasco County approved the wrong set of plans

2:27:33Sir, you c you need to stop saying that. Okay, well because because there was a page in those plans that you acknowledge was correct. You can't keep telling representing to the Planning Commission that it was a completely incorrect set of plans.

2:27:45Okay, it was twenty-five out of twenty-six pages. But but no, but the question

2:27:49is whether that correct page was enough to put somebody on notice that there may have been a problem.

2:27:54It it n when it when so unfortunately, out of human error, when Pasco County notified via email that the project had been approved. I went online to attachments for approved plans. I downloaded the file. I didn't open them. I downloaded the file and I sent it to the survey company and that's what's up there now is my email. Sending two p the e the PDFs for two projects to the survey company. Saying, please we need to stake out. So

2:28:26Then that file in its approved state is sent to a drafting company that prints plans. And then those plans are picked up. Someone goes and picks them up. and they're delivered to the job site. But no one is assuming that twenty five out of twenty six pages are wrong. So nobody is checking them Because we're not No no one is alerted that there's anything wrong.

2:28:51Do you think the one page was correct isn't isn't enough to say, hey, maybe there's an issue here?

2:28:59No because it's it does because the fact that that one page was included in there

2:29:05doesn't doesn't signify that even if somebody started flipping through it

2:29:10Didn't you say during the last hearing you even ordered the wrong trusses?

2:29:16So when we originally sent the the first set of plans to the trust company We did send a corrected when we revised the house we did send the uh the c revised plans to the trust company and they did still fabricate the wrong trusses. So

2:29:34the wrong ones being ones for a seventy foot house or a seventy three foot house.

2:29:38Seventy three. So we sent b when we're quoting this before it even goes to um permitting, we send the plans to the trust company before permitting even starts and we send it with the original house 73 feet. I then sent an email to the trust company with the revised plan saying, hey, these plans were revised. They did not revise their tr their layout. So when they shipped us the trusses, they did send us the trusses for the original 73 foot house. So again, we didn't catch an error because

2:30:08had they sent the trusses for a seventy foot house, we would have wondered we're missing a truss and then it might have triggered a light bulb, like why are we missing a trust? And then maybe then somebody would have gone and r reviewed something. But because We quote things far before they get through permitting. We already had that file sent to them. I guess

2:30:28the problem I'm having with this today is this is everybody's fault but your own.

2:30:32No, I'm admitting I'm I am that's the that that was why I'm saying moving forward when we get an approval on a permit We are absolutely gonna go check every you know, the setbacks and everything because this is new to us. When we submit something for approval and and Pasco County approves it We're not under the assumption they've done something wrong. We're not under the assumption that they've included twenty-five wrong pages out of twenty-six. No. This is the house we're to build. It's approved. It's

2:31:02stamped. Every single page is stamped approved.

2:31:05So Sir Ham how many so how many homes has uh Soho builders built and have you primarily built here in Pasco or have you built elsewhere around Tampa?

2:31:15So um Soho Builders residential and Commercial Project Inc. is partnered with Alejandro Perez, who is also a licensed contractor. The CEO of Soho Builders Residential Commercial Project Inc. is a Uh disabled. Retired veteran she's here today. Ladies Vega. So she is a licensed contractor. So Soho Builders has built approximately 24 homes in the last two years. And we've

2:31:45never had a problem. We have never once

2:31:48And those primarily in Pasco County or

2:31:50In Pasco County it in the last two years five projects. Out of five, we only have the issue with the one.

2:32:00And where where else have you built besides Pasco?

2:32:02Two projects um t finishing up now in Lakeland. They're in they just got the final paint stages. We finished two homes in the city of Tampa and they're sold. They were sold less than a month ago. We have five more homes in that same neighborhood down by the Air Force Base because we do cater, we are a veteran registered builder, so we do cater primarily to veterans. So we have five, the last two that sold in South Tampa were sold to veterans. The other five being built. are veteran

2:32:32approved with the VA and we intend to sell sell those primarily to veterans in that area. So we have five in South Tampa currently. Um Uh last year we uh Ms. Vega built her own home and moved into it. It was finished in December in the city of Tampa. Um we've built uh these two in Pasco County this year. Um about eighteen months back, total three other homes um on in

2:33:04in Pasco County. We're building one in Spring Hill in the waters of Wiki. And we just acquired a double lot on Bay Shore in Tampa and those plans are done and submitted. Um we have an additional lot in Tampa with plans that are submitted. So we currently have 14 projects running that are all finishing up in the next sixty days.

2:33:28It's all residential, so you you said you've done commercial as well or

2:33:31We do some commercial, um mostly like build-outs in strip malls.

2:33:35Okay.

2:33:36Um But yes, so as a r as a matter of record

2:33:43It is unfortunate that when the plans were approved I and my role in the company did not go and question them and check Did they approve the Rice Seth? I admittedly. I if if there is somewhere in the company to place the blame for how this escaped through, it is my fault. And I guarantee you every set of plans approved forever I w I'm will check every page against the original setbacks, what they should

2:34:13be. It was not intentional and And there's nothing in the record that shows it was intentional. Nothing at all. The the you know, twenty five out of twenty six pages. Sir,

2:34:24can I ask you a question about that? 'Cause You keep saying twenty-five out of twenty-six, but our staff report says it was really two out of three. So I'm trying to understand and you've only shown us three pages. Did the other twenty-two pages do they have the the layout of the on the the lot layout showing the setbacks?

2:34:45So the reason the staff say two out of three because there's three setbacks. But if you want every other page stamped approved. They are all

2:34:55with

2:34:55a seventy three foot house.

2:34:57But do the other pages show the setbacks?

2:35:00Nothing showing set. Well they

2:35:06The county sign The seventy-three point four.

2:35:10So I understand that, but of the pages of the approved the approved plans that actually have show setbacks, there was three pages. Is that accurate?

2:35:18There's one page with the correct setbacks and two make correct.

2:35:21But there was three are there of all the approved plan pages, there's only three that show setbacks. Is that accurate? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

2:35:29Um so Mr. Plummer, after the last hearing, a couple days after the last hearing you called my office and had a discussion with me. And during the last hearing you said that you had a closing schedule with your customer, I think it was on Friday following the hearing, you called me a couple days after the hearing. You said you were thinking about you were going to come back and reapply. and would I be willing to vote for approval if you agreed to cut a

2:35:59couple of feet off the garage? Correct. You told me and I asked you the question would the garage be usable? And you said that your buyer had a short car and didn't need a deep garage and so what happened? You're here today asking for the same variance you were here last time when you told me on the phone you were gonna come back and you were gonna try to do something to the house and also during that call I told you that it would go a long way with me if

2:36:30The neighbor work. Happy.

2:36:32Correct. So and and so that after that conversation, many things happen. One we reached out to the neighbor and we reached out we reached out. I have screenshots of the text messages they want thirty thousand dollars to block up the window and redo their kitchen. So we feel like they're just trying to extort us. They're not actually trying to be happy. because we offered to turn it into a carport which would open up their view again. And their literal response was, No, we want fifteen

2:37:03thousand dollars. So we tried to appease them. But while we re when we went out there to reach out to them because we I guess we incorrectly placed a lot of weight on their happiness coming into this meeting because you did indicate that what swayed your personal opinion was her testimony. And I did bring it up in our conversation that we had discovered she built an illegal edition. She's a licensed contractor. She has an illegal edition built on her house. And she has a shed. encroached on the five foot setbacks

2:37:33on her property. So sh and she has two vehicles parked in her backyard. and she regularly parks on the street. So I I thought, well, you know, it seems pretty hypocritical that she came and fought us on an honest mistake. given that she willfully built an illegal addition on her house. So you told me, I asked you does that come into play? And you said, Well, to be honest, if a and I'm paraphrasing this, if I knew she had an illegal addition and she violated all of these own rules herself, I would it would probably mitigate her testimony. I

2:38:04probably wouldn't place the same importance on the happiness of a neighbor.

2:38:07I did tell you that.

2:38:08If they if they're a contractor and they built an illegal addition, they're th it's far more egregious.

2:38:18I'm not seeing any offer to try to remedy the situation. When I talked to you, you said you were gonna come back and maybe take a couple feet off the front of the garage. Okay. Why aren't we doing that?

2:38:28So what so what happened was that because we first of all um we have a hard money loan that expired and we had to refinance the house. So we lost about forty-eight thousand dollars with the points and the interest. And this period of coming back extended out that in this period we wanted to reach out to the neighbor and try to amically resolve it. And so because of our conversation that you said that either them coming on board or proving that they had all these other violations would sway your opinion

2:38:59We didn't pursue chopping the front end of the house because we actually went and did a study and it would be about sixty thousand dollars. So on top of the forty eight thousand we've lost, having to submit a building revision And that you know, get the revision approved would take about 30, 45 days, and then perform the work would be 30 or 45 days. So now we're out four or five months. Trying to resolve the issue. Now that buyer, we lost the buyer because the day we came here we were supposed to close, I believe it was a Wednesday or Thursday, we were supposed to close the next day. That didn't happen. We didn't get the variance. So

2:39:29the buyer were you know backed out. We do currently have a buyer with a closing period of 45 days. He is amicable to a carport. The reason we didn't submit this saying let's do the carport. is because we went to the neighbor, again assuming that this all the crux of this was the neighbor's happiness, we offered to do a carport and they want money. So we're still willing to do the carport. If ultimately, you know the it

2:39:59you know the issue is is it the variance or is it the neighbors happiness? We were under the impression it was the neighbor's happiness. That's why we came back today after our conversation assuming that the key to this variance was the neighbor's happiness because the only person that spoke against it, the HOE is fine with it. They've already approved the variance. They've already approved not the variance, sorry, the setbacks. Um so under the maybe misinterpretation of the situation, assuming that the issue was the neighbor, We focused

2:40:30our efforts on making them happy. either giving them a ten thousand dollar landscaping allowance where they could work with the landscaping of their choice and turn it into a carport. And they refused that. Um and I have that message here. a screenshot where they're asking specifically for fifteen fifteen thousand they came down from their thirty thousand. So apparently fifteen thousand dollars would appease them enough to come and support

2:41:00this variance application.

2:41:04I

2:41:04know

2:41:05this might sound like a dumb question, I don't know. If we didn't approve the variance, how much would you lose if you had to tear his house down?

2:41:11Well, again, um

2:41:17We if if this is disapproved we will appeal it. Um and given our our feeling is just that what happened at the first meeting was unfortunate because we didn't come approved. We we were under the impression that because Hasco County was recommending approval

2:41:39We wouldn't tear the house down, but we've already lost forty eight thousand dollars. We would Most likely appeal it and if the appeal is denied then we will then what would you lose? Then Probably another forty thousand dollars.

2:41:53It only cost you forty thousand to build this house?

2:41:56No we Tearing it down would never be the ultimate consequence. Because w we could

2:42:04I hope it's not, but it might be.

2:42:06No, if we if we do remove five feet of the garage we'll be in compliance. That will cost us about six. What about the side setback? Oh. Okay. Well again, that would that's so I'm I find it hard to understand where we specifically had a conversation where you indicated that and

2:42:24what I'm trying to get to is it probably costs a couple of hundred thousand dollars to build this house, right?

2:42:29Three hundred thirty five thousand dollars yay.

2:42:33So it sounds to me like and I'm waiting to hear 'cause I want to hear from the neighbors we've heard from you way longer than the neighborhoods. I'm just trying to understand the logic of I got $300,000 at risk over here or I pay $15,000 and my neighbor's happy and maybe the Planning Commission approves my variance.

2:42:52Well it's um I apologize but it seemed really disingenuous for us to reach out to them and and offer to do a carport and landscaping for ten thousand and them start out at thirty saying we're gonna block the window up anyway. So we're like I thought you just said they'd be happy with fifteen thousand. We negotiated down the our spot it

2:43:11on the

2:43:12screen. It's right there. The last yes we You know, doing the doing the carport is about three thousand dollars. For three thousand we can just open it up so they no longer have their view obstructed. So that's the next step if we get a denial is s and uh is an a appeal and then if that's denied we'll come back and ask to turn into a carport. Or today if you guys uh if you uh sir gentlemen do want to deny it as it is, we are also requesting the um, you know,

2:43:42the possibility of the requirement that it be turned into a carport. And we bought plans to show what that would look like.

2:43:49Uh sir you said the surveyor that did the stake out is here.

2:43:52Yes he is sir.

2:43:53Um I just had a question c it goes back to um uh the question about um PDF versus CAD. Um so why why does uh he work off of uh PDF versus CAD? Is it is it so he can see something that's actually got a stamp on it as opposed to a CAD file which may not or

2:44:11I can ask him he doesn't speak uh Uh English, but I do speak Spanish so I can translate.

2:44:17¿Por qué cuando van al lugar a hacer el layout?

2:44:23¿Por qué usan un PDF? He knows who can find. Yeah.

2:44:34Excuse me, sir.

2:44:38Give us your name please.

2:44:40Buenas tardes.

2:44:49Nosotros usamos los PDF porque tiene los sellos aprobados, en el E use the PDF because it has the approved sills. En el CAD file no vamos a encontrarnos ellos de aprobado, entonces no tenemos una confianza de que esos planos realmente estén bien.

2:45:07So they don't have the confidence with the CAD file that it is the approved version that they're working with, so they prefer to use Wikipedia.

2:45:15Pero en el PDF tenemos las dimensiones del lote, los setbacks y las dimensions del building. When these coinciden

2:45:26Okay, so in the PDF they have the lot dimensions, they have the size of the house, and they have the site plan with the uh layout.

2:45:36Mm-hmm. Entonces tomamos la media del building, the setbacks, and if you suma lo que mide el lote, hace match con lo que tenemos del side plan numero uno, llamémoslo así, hacemos el layout.

2:45:52So if they open up the PDF and as they go through the PDF they check the site plan and the plans, the actual the rest of the pages. And if everything is a coincidence, then they lay out.

2:46:06So you're saying that um because there's a seventy-three foot house and the rest of the plans as well as two of the site plans that they decided that the first set of plan the first set of plans that uh had the correct setbacks was the error as opposed to being the correct one? Is that what he's saying?

2:46:23Well no, but but he did confirm to me that that when they received the one and only approved document set, there was only one page out of twenty-six with the correct setbacks. And he himself, this individual, saw this at Drange B and he looked at it, and when he looked at the other two site plans, the other two matched every other page. So he assumed That the one page must have been wrong. That it must not be correct because if all other twenty-five pages

2:46:53match, then there must be the one one. That's his own worst.

2:46:57So the breakdown would be that uh he should clarify that probably in hindsight.

2:47:01And I insisted to them that you know I'm gonna look it over myself, but if you ever get a file that's approved from the county with a state on it and there's one even one page not matching, you need to call the builder. Because that would have alerted us to the situation. But that's your

2:47:20job. You're the builder.

2:47:23It is our job and it is my job. But I and I and all I can do is apologize for myself and my employer that when I downloaded the approved file, nothing in my brain said, Let me check if they gave us the wrong file. Nothing alerts you If we've done 25 other houses and they've all gone fine, why would the county include the wrong set of plans with only one correct site on it just and and even though there's three there and you're seeing them, when you

2:47:53hand it to somebody, nobody receives it and says, look, one's different. Even as you flip through the pages, There you know, only the first page has a setback circle. The additional pages do not. The additional pages in very small writing have the actual settings of the incorrect channel. So let's see here.

2:48:21So when you receive this document and you're flipping through it and you look at the first page, the second page, the third page, there's nothing there visually that immediately tells you something's wrong. Your brain isn't looking for something wrong. There are combined count.

2:48:38So can I ask a question? Because I'm it looks like the third one, which is the correct one, has some additional stamps on it. And I guess this may be a question for our staff. What is the significance of the additional

2:48:57Because the first two only have stamps in the top left corner. The third one, which is the correct one, has some additional approvals on it.

2:49:08Yes, sir. That's the improved site plan with the additional stamps. The first one was the improved drainage. And the third one's the actual approved site plan with the circles and the circle is so they notice the setbacks that stands out to them.

2:49:23And I did call and ask them that question myself. I asked them how do I know which one is approved? Because actually I myself uploaded this and when I did upload it sitting with the draftswoman, you have to pick what you're uploading. You don't just pick a file and it goes. And so one of them says site planning, one of them says drainage plan, one of them says you know um I believe there's another one and one of them says plans so you upload

2:49:53them separately and when you move to the next page you match them to something you you match them to the

2:49:59previous document. Can I pass the indulgence insurance can I get staff back here because I really want to ask staff this question, not the applicant. So

2:50:10The additional red stamps, there's like one that says record type N S F R zoning district R two approved by Anthony. I can't read that but Anthony something. Sylvester. Um what does that mean in your world that it has this this one has that additional stamp that the other two don't?

2:50:30That is what we put put on all the site plans when we approve them. They we put those stamps on and we circle it and

2:50:38So the one that's on the right, that one's been approved does this mean it's been approved by zoning, by some department that the other two were not?

2:50:48That was approved for drainage by locus communities.

2:50:51So the two the the one on the the two on the left were only approved for drainage. The confusing part I guess in my mind is that makes sense except at the bottom. The two on the left say site plan, but then the one on the right says drainage type. So But

2:51:06also says site plan.

2:51:07But it also says site plan, true. So I guess what I'm question I'm asking is Is it common knowledge that you need to have this additional red stamp from for it to be the approved Site plan?

2:51:23Um we have used that stamp since I've been in since I've been in permitting, that stamp has been used for approval.

2:51:32So in your world the the two on the left were never really approved site plans?

2:51:36Yes, sir.

2:51:37You needed that additional stamp to say it was approved. Yes,

2:51:40sir.

2:51:42Okay, thank you.

2:51:43Yeah, the stamp says Pasco County Central Permitting Site Plan on the stamp.

2:51:50Okay. Mr. Plumber, just real quick, just some dates here. When did you start building the house?

2:51:56January of twenty twenty one. Twenty, twenty twenty twenty, twenty no. Twenty twenty February twenty twenty

2:52:05two. When did you finish? Because I'm assuming you're done now, you're trying to get a CO?

2:52:10We finished actually I believe in October or November of twenty twenty two and we've been um dealing with this since. So we have been trying to get a CO for about six months. And when did you become aware that there was an issue? When we got an email back from Pasco County replying to our as built that we submitted, which was the last requirement for

2:52:31the C O you answer the first two questions with a date. Do you have a date for that question? So okay.

2:52:37Yes, I can if you'll give me one second I could tell you

2:52:43The exact date.

2:52:48I just have to connect to my internet.

2:52:59So we we have the answer that was October thirty first, twenty twenty two.

2:53:03Okay. So shortly after you completed the actual construction.

2:53:06Okay.

2:53:06And You indicated that you had HOA approval?

2:53:12Yes, and I actually have that in my PowerPoint um Let's see here.

2:53:21Yeah, if we could see that, I'd like to see that as well. Okay.

2:53:25Okay.

2:53:29Okay, that's slide thirty-one. Sorry, I have to go through all these.

2:53:36And that's some of what the other people that wanna uh homeowners wanna come and talk about. is they have claimed that the HOA has not approved it. And we, through my realtor who is present, He did. Submit this application on July 6th of 2021 with the site plan showing a 20-foot setback and eight and a half on the side. And again that was because this was before we even went through permitting. This was the original set of plans with the front-facing garage.

2:54:07So um after this we got an email back

2:54:13Can you go back there?

2:54:15That approval? So um There's one spot it looks like on the approval. It says driveway. It says plot plan showing location and type of material shall not be nearer than ten feet to any lot line unless stated differently in DCRs, which I'm assuming are the HOA documents. And that box is checked off there. Is there any significance to that? Um

2:54:42At the time that we filled this out, We in the HOE documents, which we also have screenshots of, it talks about um the front setbacks as an average of twenty five.

2:54:55So So that's that modification. I'm reading it. Correct. Yeah, so it's a modification request and it looks like it's by signature of this form I agreed to allow the architecture board to verify that this modification has been completed to include permission for the person.

2:55:09And so on that um site plan we submitted to the HOA it does show eight and a half. So that may be why that box was checked. And that would concur with what was submitted. And later Approved.

2:55:20Yeah, but w the way you look at that though is the only thing that they approved was your driveway, because that's the only thing that's checked off of there. They didn't check anything else. You don't have a pool on property, so obviously you won't check that. Correct. No screen room, no fence, no addition. So the only thing that they approved, in my opinion, is the driveway, which you had to submit a document showing them the driveway, because they probably wanted us a

2:55:43Well they and my realtor could explain to you they do require a site plan showing the lot, the footprint, the setbacks, the forward facing. In this case we didn't want to do a side loading garage. Both of our neighbors have front loading garages and many houses in the neighborhood do have front loading garages. Apparently the side loading is something that has gone away. They're not doing anymore. So they do ask for the orientation of the garage, the footprint, the setbacks. And essentially like a cycle.

2:56:12Well wait, time out for a minute. That's your opinion. The first paragraph reads, please attend the ARC meeting, which is probably the architecture review committee, to obtain immediate approval for your application. The only application I see you're asking for is a driveway.

2:56:30I think that's the only modification they approved. It's um everything else is approved with that modification.

2:56:38That the the only thing that he has gone in for is the driveway.

2:56:43And my realtor managed the communications directly with the HOA at all times, and he could tell you, because he did relay the communication to me, that they did require this document. So I helped draw it up.

2:56:56I'm just stating the fact that

2:57:00this is an application form, you had to submit this before you went to this architectural review committee.

2:57:06Yes, we submit but But and there was no ARB m committee or meeting that we attended. Um they when they received this, they approved. I'm saying

2:57:14you filled this form out, right?

2:57:16Yes.

2:57:17Okay. And is this the site plan that went with the form?

2:57:20Yes, this is

2:57:20the second page of that document. So it says here lot plan showing location and type of material shall not be nearer than ten feet to any lot line unless stated differently in BC. CRs. So why would you submit a site plan showing a driveway that's only eight and a half feet from the property though?

2:57:38So the title of the forum says Lake Page Estates East Property Owners Association Architectural Board Request for Exterior Modification and they've checked off the particular modification they are requesting, which is not meeting that ten foot guideline.

2:57:55is in line with the house eight and a half feet from the lat line.

2:58:00Mr Chair, if I may. I believe that one of the two gentlemen that signed up to speak is actually with the Lake Page Estates East um HOA who might be able to answer that qua these questions.

2:58:14Okay. Yeah. All right, why don't you give us a a few minutes to

2:58:21Well before we do that, we kinda interrupted the applicant. Did did the applicant complete this presentation?

2:58:27I think he he he was just responding to our questions.

2:58:30Yeah I just want to make sure that he got through his presentation.

2:58:33Based on your indication that you didn't want to hear about the other issues, yes. But there are other issues.

2:58:40Well is your presentation on the actual variance before criteria and your hound complete?

2:58:47Yes, and I understand that any after other people speak I'll be able to do rebuttal. Yes. And then I could continue the other pages if needed. Yes.

2:58:54Okay.

2:58:57All right. You state your name and address

2:59:00and

2:59:02My name is Robert Stone. I'm Licensed Community Association Manager for Lake Page Estates East Property Owners Association. Can you mention it?

2:59:10And you've been sworn.

2:59:12I was. I live in Spring Hill, but my place of business at the HOA is 4533 Savannah Way, Land O' Lakes, Florida, 34639. As you can see, there was the wrong paperwork filed. It was just for the driveway that was originally approved. The HOA does not employ engineers, surveyors, or contractors. We can't look at a set of plans and determine anything from that. So we just look at the aesthetics. That's what the HOA is I don't think any

2:59:42HOA has an engineer, a licensed, surveyor, or anyone else on staff. So aesthetically the house passed all of our inspections. The colors have passed all of our inspections. So that's why originally that was approved as the dry weight. We did further email with him. I didn't bring copies. I won't waste your time with a bunch of it, but we did ask him to come back and fill out the proper paperwork for a new construction bill, which would have included additional information on the setbacks

3:00:13and everything, but we put most of all of our requirements in the original paperwork, which is what states ten feet from the property line. There has been a couple issues that have come up, which is why I am here. The board of directors directed me to come here and speak to y'all. There is drainage issues for a couple of the neighboring properties. There's no soil that's effectively draining the water past that house, so it's backing up on the neighboring communities. Also February nineteenth,

3:00:43this house was used for a Sweet Sixteen birthday party, and that has us concerned about everything that's happening and going on. So the Board of Directors has asked that the commissioners deny the variance as it stands and the HOA documents do not allow a carport, so that would have never been discussed or approved or even thought about. So that's not something that could have happened. Any questions?

3:01:12I have one. Yes, sir. Hence I'm not gonna let go of this one. This form was handed to your HOA committee, your architectural review committee. Yes. The only thing that you approved on this one is the driveway.

3:01:25Yes, that's all that's checked off. That's all that there's approved on it was the driveway. Thank you. Anything else?

3:01:33Okay.

3:01:35Mm-hmm.

3:01:38Thank you very much about the street. Thank you. What I'm particularly wanting to see is is there's whales on the street that ought to be culverted.

3:01:47Mm-mm.

3:01:51Thank you very much. I think we're done asking questions.

3:01:58D did you also want to call the other person that's here to speak on the item? Daniel Fisatola, I hope that's I said that correctly.

3:02:11And Daniel, you ever been sworn? Yes, I've been sworn. Your name and address.

3:02:16My name is Daniel Fissatola. I've been I live at [address removed]. I am the former president of the Homeowners Association. and NRDCRs that run with the LAN. The minimum setback for that house is 25 feet from the road and 10 feet on each side. When the person, whoever bought the land Got a copy of those DCRs

3:02:46when they signed the papers. It They should have known that they had to meet those requirements. to build a house there. I've been in construction for 30 years. I've been a project manager, I've been a I've been a uh road and bridge inspector for the state of Florida. Whenever I got plans back from the Building department, I always check the plans. I don't care whether it's stamped approved or not. You always check. You always

3:03:16look for a mistake. We're only we're all fallible. We're but we're only human. We all make mistakes. That's all I have to say.

3:03:24Do we have any questions? Will you sit down, sir? Sir?

3:03:29I'm sorry.

3:03:33Yeah, are there any questions? I'm sorry. That's okay. That was pretty rude, but we'll accept it.

3:03:40Like I said, we're all fellow. Except the Pope, he's not.

3:03:46So those D C R say those those same setbacks is what the county requires, correct?

3:03:54We're a fifty year old community. We've been there We are we just celebrated our 50 years of uh of uh Existence. Existence, I guess you would say.

3:04:05Okay.

3:04:06Uh And um Depending there are There are three different um Um D C R uh packages depending on the size of the lot. And his lot is a twenty-five foot setback with ten on each side. As for other houses on that block, I know they all meet the the minimum requirements. Nobody else is uh he's the only one that didn't meet

3:04:36the requirement.

3:04:37And so I know that um when there's a discrepancy between DCRs and and the county requirements, it's always a more restrictive of the two that generally applies. So so in this case, um it based on the that was submitted there was one spot, at least on the driveway, where it looked like it didn't meet that setback and that's why it he applied for that modification to the approval.

3:05:02I think that modification form was filed. Uh uh wrongly. I don't think it w what he should have did was came to the uh Homeowners Association, submitted the plans, And the uh Um Homeowners Association has a committee. A building uh Architectural committee. And the architectural committee would sit down. It also says in the DCRs that

3:05:32the house has to meet a minimum of twelve hundred square feet living plus a two-car garage. There is no sub uh no supplement for uh car ports. It has to be a two-car garage. Um

3:05:48did anyone from the HOA um request say, you know, look, we need more than just this. This is a new construction. We need a different submittal. Did anyone explain that to him?

3:06:04I don't know why he d why it never came to the uh architectural committee for approval. I don't know. I couldn't answer that. You'll have to ask him that.

3:06:15Okay. So no one Yeah, but you don't know if anyone told him the correct okay.

3:06:21Anything else? Because we have uh everybody that has built the house there in the past, we get copies, we asked for three uh three copies of the of the plans, a site plan, three copies of the site plan. And when we approve them, we play we we stamp approval on them. And we keep that in the file. In our office. But evidently that didn't happen with with this house. I don't know.

3:06:48And but the DRCs explain that process?

3:06:52Yes. It's in the it's in the DCRs. Everything is is plainly um Um Worded in the in the DCRs and explained in the D C Rs. For a new construction.

3:07:06Can you elaborate on the Sweet Sixteen Party? Is the home ha does a home have a certificate of occupancy or is it occupied by anybody?

3:07:14Uh that house? There was no

3:07:16somebody just said they had a sweet sixteen part of the side.

3:07:18Oh they're at that new house, yeah. They they had no CO. I don't I know I heard about the party but I wasn't uh aware of uh what transpired there. I know they had a party.

3:07:31That would concern the HI troop.

3:07:33Did we approve

3:07:34it? No. Would that concern the HOA?

3:07:38Well, it's a concern because there was no CL. And you know, you don't want anybody living in a house without a CL. I don't even know how to get Electric turned on without a CEO.

3:07:50Yeah, thank you. Mm-hmm. Okay, are any other questions?

3:07:59So I just have a couple comments to add to it. My name is Scott Carly, I'm the commercial chief for Pasco.

3:08:03Why don't you come up to the microphone? Thank you.

3:08:05Yeah, we have a little bit of circle. Yeah? So we have a process that we do at Pasco. We went to computer approving plans exam. So because of that, we can all see that at the same time. Zoning got hold of it, said no good. Electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and building said yes, we're good. We approved a plan that was too big. It didn't fit in the truck. When they said the truck's too small, we didn't stop this plan. We are better for this. We have a better

3:08:35process. We know zoning needs to be approved before the rest of them do. This is gonna help us. The right-of-way permit. didn't show a covert. Everybody else on the street has a covert, but the right-of-way permit didn't show a covert on it. So that's why my guys gave a final to this. The form board survey is another step that we've added. So we get a proposed and then we get a form board survey right after it's formed to confirm that it's in the right spot before concrete,

3:09:06before lentel. My guys went there. The first page on this path is the approved wrong one where it's got that stamp on there. When the form board showed up, we went off the wrong one, and that's where we're at. So genuinely the guy should have known as a professional that he gave a new lot plan. But since then 40% of this is on us because we should have never approved a plan that was too big for the lot. And that's where my that's why I'm here. I want to be fair to

3:09:36everybody. Okay? All right. Any questions?

3:09:39Thank you.

3:09:39Yeah. Any questions?

3:09:42No, what I'm sorry, what was your name again? For the record? Say it in there. I mean I want her to have it on the record. Yeah. Scott Carly. Thank you, Scott.

3:09:50And w what's your position with the county? I'm sorry.

3:09:52Constructional chief, building specialist.

3:09:54Thank you. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Scott.

3:09:58And and we do have photographs showing the

3:10:01Excuse me, sir. I'm sorry, you're not. Yeah, you're not

3:10:06now. You're not you don't have to worry about it.

3:10:11No.

3:10:12There's your mouth.

3:10:13I emailed him an

3:10:15an image that we could present it. I think I think he just answered my question about

3:10:22it.

3:10:23All right, so where do we stand with the applicant?

3:10:26So we we've got all public comments that we have.

3:10:30Yeah, that's it all.

3:10:32Okay.

3:10:35In response to the culvert issue also I asked that a a copy of the HOA guidelines on culverts be presented because it says that driveways over ditches be culverted. And if you look in these pictures, there is no ditch. The entire front of the property is smooth. There is no ditch.

3:10:58Yes,

3:10:59smooth after you graded it, correct?

3:11:01No, not

3:11:01the same.

3:11:04If you go back historically and look at all the printing,

3:11:08in the front of The house of each side of you, is there a ditch? There is not a ditch. There they have culverts under their driveways. Well then there must be a ditch. There w there well no, if you if they have like an eight inch or twelve inch pipe.

3:11:26This man over here is an expert in stormwater drainage. Okay. Trying to argue that point is stupid.

3:11:36Well, um a six inch depression leading up to a culvert and then an eight inch or ten inch culvert pipe is not a ditch. And if you look at the plan if you look at the street

3:11:49view There's not a ditch. That that's of your lot. That's correct. After you graded it, you did not put a ditch there. That's correct. But if we go to the previous picture That's a ditch. Okay. That that's you answered my question, that's fine. I'm done.

3:12:04Um Denise, you had a picture up there before Google Street View which showed the lot before anybody touched it. Can you bring that back up?

3:12:16Okay.

3:12:25And you y I think you could spin that around to kinda look one way down the street and back

3:12:31Definitely. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You didn't say that's covered It's

3:12:39Yeah, it's on both

3:12:40sides.

3:12:41Yeah.

3:12:46And we are open to putting a covert in that if the county a you know, a year and six months ago approved these plans without a covert. And the engineers went out and inspected it three times. The stormwater does three site inspections. And one of those was during the rainy season. And At no point in time were we told we had to do a covert. And in the in the picture I sent It does specifically say that culverts

3:13:17over ditches. There is not a ditch in front of our property, so we didn't design one originally. But if the county says you need a covert, we will put one in. We're not opposed to it.

3:13:28Can I ask Carla Garlock, why is a drainage plan required to be submitted? What's the purpose of that drainage plan? Is to determine what's needed for the for the lock. And and and this and the criteria for approval is demonstration that there's no adverse impact to adjacent properties, right? Okay.

3:13:57Uh sir can you speak to um so there's some mention of a party that was going on at the property. Can you speak to that?

3:14:04Yes. Um well on multiple occasions we have had open houses while when we were going for the CO, we did list it for sale. And one uh friend of ours who was a bank manager is Very active in her church. And she she did not it was not a sweet sixteen. She asked if she could have a meeting with her church members. Now My interpretation was they're not living there, they're gonna be there for two hours. It's just like an open house. When we have an open house, ten or fifteen people show up. They look around,

3:14:35they look at the house and they leave. Now Um I don't know how many people attended, but I have learned that one side did allow them to use the house for this church meeting. it was quite a few people. And uh but it they did not sleep there, they were not there more than three hours tops. So They did not inhabit it as far as living in it. They were not overnight. Um So I didn't consider it an activity that would violate

3:15:05a CO principle based on the fact that we're allowed to have open houses that go all day and have ten, fifteen people going through the house.

3:15:14But in reality you do not know what occurred at that event.

3:15:19Um I I did speak to the

3:15:21what do you know, actually, not hearsay.

3:15:26The lady I I physically was not present. So anything said about it is hearsay. Okay. Nobody here was present.

3:15:36Were you present at the party? I'm sorry, we don't have to talk from the audience. I'm just checking.

3:15:40But there are residents who brought it up and they probably have knowledge of it where you have none, so

3:15:49Okay. David, can you speak to um for COs? What what's the legal requirement for What are you allowed to do on the property without a CDO CO and what are you not allowed to do?

3:16:02Well I'd rather the building official address that question because she deals with that issue.

3:16:12Ah no, nobody is allowed to be in the house before a CEO is issued. Ah if you need to use it temporarily, you should have applied for a temporary CEO. And that was not done.

3:16:26So does that apply to construction workers that are completing the house and

3:16:31Uh before a house is occupied, after the house is final and uh the shouldn't Nobody should not even furniture, nothing should be there. Except if you apply for a TCO, that's what a TCO is for, temporary certificate of occupancy.

3:16:50And is that clearly outlined in the ordinance?

3:16:53Oh it's it's on is among the documents we send out. Uh by the time you have the building final we send out documentation to tell you how and when to apply for either TCO or CO. It's highlighted all there.

3:17:12So Esther, can I ask you a follow up question? If somebody occupies a structure without a CO or a TCO, is that a violation of the building code? Yes, it is. Okay, so I guess in general it's my opinion that whether that occurred or not is not really relevant for this hearing. I mean It if it did occur, I'm not saying it's it's a problem. That's that that we have a different enforcement process for somebody occupying a building without a CO. That's not really the province

3:17:42of this

3:17:43Right.

3:17:44Planning Commission, you have to decide whether the variants should be approved or not, not whether they violated the affordable building code on a CO.

3:17:54Yeah.

3:17:56I do have one more question for Carla, but I don't I don't know if he's done with his rebuttal. Are you done with your rebuttal?

3:18:02Well, um I do feel that in this hearing, as it applies to requesting the variance,

3:18:14What we have demonstrated through the evidence is that when we submitted the plans They requested a revision. We submitted the revision. And I committed the mistake when I downloaded the plans of not revising or reviewing them Reviewing the approved set. That was my mistake. And that was a human error. I admit that I did not review them after they were approved. I simply sent the email to the

3:18:44survey company and construction began. So as it applies to the variance, I do believe this is a bona fide error. that it was not willful or intentional, We did not gain anything by building this particular version of the house because we paid for a revision. and the same house that was revised the plans of the revised house would say would sell for the same price. They had the same square footage. We don't

3:19:14gain anything. by circumventing any system or any person or willfully building the wrong house. And so it is a genuine mistake. I committed the mistake. I did not review the approved set of plans to see if it was indeed the second version that was submitted. And from there the error continued. and even the tie-in survey which was

3:19:44reviewed by Pasco County. on site and digitally. was not caught then either because it matched the proof plans. So when they reviewed the tie-in survey they compared them to the approved plans. So this error in it in in essence It is not just my error, although I accept responsibility wholeheartedly. Absolutely, for not reviewing the

3:20:15approved set of plans. I absolutely wish I could go back And I I promise you my behavior as an employee, I am reviewing every set of plans moving forward. every page to make sure that what is approved

3:20:32is the right set of plans. So we do not find ourselves in this situation. We have built a total of twenty five homes in the last two year in the last two and a half years. We only have an issue with one. And Pasco County I believe, shares in this responsibility. for approving the wrong set of plans. And that is a part of this situation, a part of the problem. Had that had those

3:21:02plans not been approved And had I not Downloaded that said and committed my mistake, we wouldn't be here today. Had Pasco County substituted the pages correctly. and approve the right set. We would not be here today. We would have an approved set of plans for the right size house and that's what would have been built. And the fact that we did get a revision And the engineer is present and he did sign the revision. He

3:21:32he made the revision and we did submit it. It shows that we did not intend to defraud or Mislead anybody. We are not here today because we intentionally did this. So we do have a problem. We do need a variance. But it is not a willful You know, is it was absolutely not willful. And nothing in the record anywhere. demonstrated so it was

3:22:02willful. There's no testimony, there's nothing in writing, There's no reports from any person at all. Nothing they would say we did this willfully. In fact all the evidence shows that it was human error group. It was absolutely a human error. And ultimately This isn't a radio tower. This isn't a warehouse built ten thousand square feet or something. This this home It does not detract from the neighborhood.

3:22:33It doesn't lower property values. It doesn't affect safety. It doesn't prevent traffic or ambulances. Um in fact Speaking to the neighbors who have complained about the drainage, we have offered to do gutters. and run bubblers underground out to the street. And if the county wants us to do a covert, we will do it. In fact, if you want to specify that we have to do a

3:23:03culvert and gutters to solve any issues with flooding. We already have plans to do those things. As the gutters for sure. The the covert, if we're told to do it, we will do it. By anybody. So outside of any drainage issues, and it is the footprint of any house will affect drainage. It is our opinion that once we built the house it was not an empty lot, so perhaps the watershedding from the the property is on to us. We don't hold

3:23:34the water that we probably historically used to hold because now we have a bu building footprint. but we can solve that problem with gutters and bubblers. So given that this is a bona fide error It was not committed willfully, And it does not affect the neighborhood negatively. The house actually raises property values. I I would ask the commission, if they're gonna deny the variance as it is, to at least approve a carport. Now the

3:24:05the gentleman got up here and said there were no talks about a carport but my realtor Called the HOA. And their words were, if the Commission approves a carport, it does have to go through review, but we we will approve what they approve. And that conversation was had and he is here and he's not lying.

3:24:26And so No. If the HOA doesn't approve the carport, It's it's is it a concern of yours? No, because we will be right back somewhere finding another solution. So whether there the d the d the disagreement of whether the HOE will approve it or not is irrelevant. Because we have to solve that problem. Regardless. So And and if you do

3:24:56approve it, even under the circumstances of creating carport, which I have the plans here, We will have to go through HOA approval and we will submit it and they will approve or deny it.

3:25:09So I would implore The commission to hopefully approve the variance as it stands due to the fact that there is no negative impact on the neighborhood.

3:25:22everyone's property values are going up. And this house is helping their values go up. And everyone that has visited this house Belief the house is beautiful and it is appropriate in the neighborhood. It doesn't have odd colors or stick out like a thorsoum, sore thumb. It is a a thoughtful, well-built house that adds value to the neighborhood. And we did, I did absolutely make that mistake

3:25:52of not reviewing the plans, and that is why I am here asking for a variance. Because I made the mistake. And I do believe that we that we should be granted a variance. Because I do believe Pasco County shares the responsibility. Whether it be fifty fifty. Seventy thirty, seventy my fault, thirty percent, but them Pasco County approving These plans as they are? Absolutely.

3:26:25Started this domino effect and brought us to where we are today, including my participation, I'm not reviewing it.

3:26:34Sir, you are entitled to rebuttal, but it's not an unlimited period of time. So I you're starting to be a little repetitive.

3:26:40Okay. Well So in I'll just close. Um If you approve it, it won't negatively affect the neighborhood. it positively affects the neighborhood.

3:26:51Okay, you said that too. That's fine.

3:26:54Thank

3:26:54you.

3:26:55Can I just ask the clo staff one question? Absolutely. Carla. So can we put up the graphic that shows the stamp plans again? The I think it was part of the applicant's PowerPoint.

3:27:12Or if it's I don't care whose PowerPoint it was, but the one that has the three planes on it.

3:27:35This is a complete sign set of what's on the PowerPoint.

3:27:39Well, I was like I'll just ask the question and Carl, if you need the plans you can It's up to you. I j I just w I'm really wanna know 'cause I don't know if anybody's asked you directly

3:27:52Here it is.

3:27:52Yeah. So Did did somebody on staff take The approved site plan on the right and Mm. attach it to the drainage plant. Like in your words, what what happened to your in your in your opinion?

3:28:09In my opinion, it's because when they upload to the cellus system and they don't call the plan the exact same thing every time, it it doesn't overlay. So if it's in the system and it's in that plan set, it stamps it. Yeah. That's why it's stamp three. The approval stamps are the stamp from Mr. Moody and from uh my team with the red stamp that says site plan approved. But

3:28:40the cell assistant is the stamp on the top that you see from the three.

3:28:45So who who who assembles these sheets into whatever is provided to the builder or surveyor, who who compiles all these and says these are the approved plans.

3:29:00That I don't I'm relying on Esther here because my team just does the development code.

3:29:05Okay. So you you're saying your role is limited to the the sheet on the the right?

3:29:10Uh yes sir. We send this the sheet on the left, we send that to John Moody or whoever on the drainage team is going to approve

3:29:18it.

3:29:21I'm sorry. And for the record, no relation. No one moody to another.

3:29:26But he's a really great guy. And

3:29:29then my team does the one that's on the right.

3:29:33Okay, so y your role is limited to this what's on the right. Who whose role is it to take But Carla approves and then what Luke Moody approves and assemble them into a Approved plan set.

3:29:49Well the approved plan set is done automatically by ePAMILUP, the system, the plan room, not any human being.

3:29:59Oh, so there is no human being that

3:30:01assembles no. It's the system. So like Carla was explaining, if the naming is the same, like the first one that they sent that was wrong, that staff sent back that needs revision. When they are the approved set the revision comes back. If it is given the same name. then the system will not have Put in the

3:30:31version one. So it will have overlaid and published the right set. But what happened is if there is any variation in the naming, then it assumes that there uh is a different uh uh page. That's exactly what happened.

3:30:55So Mr Moody was apparently only approving the two on the right For drainage purposes.

3:31:00For

3:31:00drainage purposes, yes. He doesn't look at setbacks. No. How did he get plans with that had the wrong setbacks on them?

3:31:08Yeah.

3:31:12Because when we uh in the

3:31:16Trying to make the review concurrent. When we get the plan in for development code review, we'll send it to the drainage team to review while we're reviewing the site plan. The same as the building, the Florida building code is being reviewed by the plans examiners. We're all trying to do this at the same time because we do have a time limit, as you're well aware of. permits out within. So we're trying to make it the quickest review possible for the customers. So that's why

3:31:46we'll send that out when we first get it in to the drainage team and to Flood for instance or other departments that have to work.

3:31:54So when they resubmitted the plans with the correct setbacks, did Mr Mooney not get the correct version?

3:32:03It it doesn't appear that he did, but uh the only difference would be the the ten foot instead of the eight and a half on this side. And I'm not a drainage engineer, so I really don't know what effect that would have.

3:32:16So did you say before that this has caused you to identify a perhaps a process issue that you can modify going forward, knowing that Uh the site plan with setbacks need to be approved first before anything else is sent out to anyone else and then from there it's gonna be sent out concurrently to all the other departments.

3:32:35Uh yes, sir. We we I mean we do we have now began to stamp the plans my team has because we don't want something like this happening again. And you know and at that time it wasn't a it wasn't a procedure because it wasn't I mean we hadn't had any issues with it up until this particular night.

3:32:58Yeah, I mean when you I I think most of us know that if you have a document that you have it saved and you wanna modify it If you resave it after you've modified it and you don't give it the same exact name th or you know, they put that in the save where it says save, then it's gonna save then it's gonna have two documents. Yep. You know. So it's important that's the important thing is that everybody calls it the same thing. So when they save it, if it's

3:33:28called drainage plan A that saved as D drainage plan A, then that's what you gotta call it, no matter what it really is, it's still gotta be drainage plan A. So it ends up being the only document So when you pull up the document for that site, that's the only document you get. You don't get the old ones that were modified. And and I I think that's what happened here is that it was saved under different names. So that's why you ended up with three documents.

3:33:57So so in this case, whenever this came back and they were required to submit a new site plan, were they also required to submit new building plans that showed the 70-foot house? No. Is there anything in the current system now check and balance?

3:34:12No.

3:34:13To require them to submit new sets that show the correct building?

3:34:17No. And the s the the really the truth is We don't scale plans. We assume that the contractor knows what he's doing and that once you get your setbacks and your sites, you can get whatever you needed to do to make sure that the plan that you're building, that you're scaling, meets

3:34:40requirements. But I mean that just seems like a problem is created to me because if somebody gives you eighty foot white house and they can only build a seventy foot house. And then all of a sudden they're gonna send the plan sheet to this trust guy to build trusses and and you haven't updated the truss plan, it still says eighty foot house, you're gonna get a trusses for eighty foot house.

3:34:57I have impl implemented in a field when we get the form board

3:35:00Sir Sir Sir you need to come up to the mic so we can get through.

3:35:04So but I have implemented in a field for form boards. If it's sixty-nine foot, we will look at the plan, we want to see sixty-nine foot. So there is a little better better than this now, but it this was our teaching moment, this house right here.

3:35:16Right. Yeah. She did say earlier when I asked her at the outset of this hearing that they expect the design professional to coordinate the sets of plans submitted to the

3:35:26Well that that's d I guess what where I was going with that point was is that all the other sheets in the stamped approved set, with the exception of this one on the right had the wrong building. When well really my question was is is something done, has something changed in the process to where the stamped approved plan set is the approved plans.

3:35:48Well the contractor owns the permit and the contractor owns all the plans, all the all the approvals that he has. The contractor will communicate with the contractor. Okay, yeah, your setback is strong. This is what you need to do, this is what it needs to be. So the contractor should know what and what it is at the end of the day. It's the contractor because he's supposed to be.

3:36:14Well but Esther

3:36:15if if

3:36:15somebody has to take ten foot off the width of a house,

3:36:18aren't

3:36:19there other things that that would change that other departments under your purview would review? Uh, because the span

3:36:24of the house will still be the same. the nomenclature, the structures, everything All what we're looking for for the has to be Will still be the same. In fact, I still have his case today that somebody is saying, Well, I've already submitted a letter. Isn't that enough? Do I need to alter this? I know that this needs to be this. And it's the truth. He he knows that this is what it needs to be. If we we can teach that and said oh,

3:36:55we're now holding people's And to do that. And

3:37:00professionals are supposed to act like it. So definitely this lands on him. But it's a learning curve for us because we are doing digital review. Back when we had one page to review, zoning said yes, and then it went down the list. So we knew what everybody was saying yes to. So we do over twelve hundred inspections a day. This is the first pickup. We have a great system. Just a little bit of tuning. So it and professionals have to act that way too, you know. So but this is a learning curve for the digital review

3:37:30because zoning said no and we didn't share that knowledge to the other four. So we had a plan that was approved that was too big for the truck. The box was too big to fit in a truck, and we said no, yeah, I didn't know. So that's what we have. You know? So I just but the professional She's not wrong about saying I was a contractor for 21 years. I hit it, it lands on me. But I want to be fair to the process. We're better than we were. Yeah, that's what you're asking. Yes, sir. We're not going to be able to do

3:37:56it. It just seems that obvious that if if something changes, I mean in this case, we're only talking three feet. Even if it's in three feet, you take three feet out of a hallway, all of a sudden the hallway inside the building is only two feet wide. Well then you're you're people that are reviewing the other departments are gonna say, wait a second, you gotta do something else. So

3:38:12it's getting

3:38:13the zoning

3:38:14server

3:38:14now to help that process?

3:38:17But they believe the the contractor said he did submit a a set of plans that would fit within the set tax.

3:38:25Yes. Well how how come they didn't get included in the stamped approved set?

3:38:29I I'm not sure what happened.

3:38:36Go ahead. You mentioned that.

3:38:38Hold on. Is the chair willing to bring him back up again? Because he's I want to make sure you're okay with that.

3:38:44Just to answer this one question.

3:38:46So we'll be very short.

3:38:47All right.

3:38:48She mentioned that the plans have to exactly match the previous ones. I submitted it. So when I submitted it, it zooms in on this corner of the plans. Now. Can you speak into the microphone, please? When it zooms into this corner of each sheet, you're given all twenty six sheets and you're supposed to name them. Nothing tells you anywhere to name it the same. You could write the word sheet tea. Or just tea? So It

3:39:18appears to me that there needs to be a process also that when contractors are submitting Somehow you have to name it the same. Because I couldn't tell you, I don't recall if I named this T or Sheet T or Plan Sheet T. I don't know what the first time it was or the second time but I could tell you That when you submit it the second time, all you're presented is like a little window. magnifying the corner of the plan. And you could name it zero three. Or sheet zero three. So if

3:39:49I'm understanding correctly, if the second time around I submitted I put sheet zero three, it wouldn't match the first time.

3:40:01Like in in sheet site plan, all three got included. So that I don't understand. But my only point, obviously I think there's a lot of I think there's a lot of people at fall here. I think I do think it's a bona fide error. I do think it's a bona fide error on a lot of people's part. I think the engineer's responsible, I think the contractor's responsible. I think the surveyor is responsible. And I and I personally I think the county has shared some responsibility. Um I mean the important part here is I I think and I it sounds like everybody's learned a lesson.

3:40:31Everybody's gonna do further checks and balances. Things have changed in the process. Processes at the county. Um it is a new system. I don't deal with building construction services that often, but I I I do deal on the other side. So I I know there's processes and and things get learned throughout. I just want to make sure that we look back at this and make all the changes that we need to make to make sure that this doesn't happen again. Because I mean it it's a huge problem. I mean personally I I have a

3:41:01a big problem with a lot of other things in in relation to the house. I mean the driveway culvert, the drainage problems. I mean I think that needs to be addressed personally and I don't know if anybody's even talked about it, but I don't know who approved the landscape plan for this house, but this landscape plan on this house is pathetic. I mean as a builder you gotta be embarrassed that this is a house that you're trying to sell with a landscape package you put In front of this house. I mean y you've shoved the house all the way up to the street? 20 feet it does not meet does not match anything

3:41:32that's in the rest of the whole neighborhood. Everything else out there is 25 feet. All your neighbors are over 30 feet. Um Th there's I see evidence that no trees, period, are planted on the entire lot. I think there's a a requirement of the code That there's has to be lot trees planted for each house that's built. So I I mean it's I I don't know where you go from here. I I I really hate

3:42:00Well I think so let me it ultimately depends on whether the Planning Commission wants to approve or deny the bearings. If you were inclined to approve it, you could develop conditions to deal with drainage, landscaping, some of the other issues that you mentioned. Bye. You can only condition an approval. Sorry. You can't condition a denial. So so

3:42:24No, but we could possibly continue the matter and suggest that when you bring it back That the drainage be fixed, that the HOA behind you is happy, that the next door neighbor's happy, but you don't think the ex door next door neighbor's trying to extort you. I want a nice peaceful agreement.

3:42:48And

3:42:51Okay. that these other these other deficiencies are fixed. Give you some time to go get it worked out. Oh

3:43:02I just want to reply to that that um yes, um drainage issues, culvert, um better landscaping, plant three more trees on the board on that a hundred percent. We are at an impasse with the neighbor on the right because We We I do believe in principles and I I while I do agree that We are five foot over the setback and we reached out to them to make them acting.

3:43:31Excuse me, but we've been through this. Okay. So my only point is.

3:43:42Sir, I don't think anybody brought you back up. This is to the this is to the Planning Commission now.

3:43:46I I I had a question of staff too real quick uh for this portion of the debate.

3:43:52Yeah, let's if you don't mind Derek Let John if he's gonna make a motion and we can have have discussion.

3:43:58I have a question for the staff. Since he doesn't have a C O right now Don't you as the building official have the right to say, hey, there's a problem with the drainage, the ditch is blocked. By the way, the ditch is identified on the original. Site plan or drainage approved drainage plan. It says

3:44:20We have a right-of-way permit, RO building permit, and that's what inspectors

3:44:24use when we go out to do a building on it. Okay, but sometimes things happen. I mean you have the right to go out there and say, okay, there was an error here and we need a call vert.

3:44:36I mean, if we leave the middle out of a bridge just because some inspector approved the bridge for a final, we don't not fix the bridge.

3:44:46John, are you gonna make a motion?

3:44:48Yeah, I'd make a motion to continue this to what's it, the next meeting in May here? So

3:44:55May fourth. So let me d let me just ask a question because it's gonna be difficult for Liam and Denise to If if you're But the Planning Commissioner leaning towards an approval with conditions They can work on the type of conditions that you're talking about to deal with all the stuff that has to be done before a CEO is issued for this project. If you're if you're inclined to recommend denial, it

3:45:26would be pointless for Liam to do all that work. Trying to save Liam the you know um so

3:45:36It'd be good if you all at least I don't have a problem with you continuing it. I think if you're gonna continue you probably need to continue it anyway if you want uh all these issues to be addressed. But

3:45:48You need to give staff some kind of idea where you're leaning so that they know how to deal with this when it comes back.

3:45:54So can I ask a question to staff here is while we're in this discussion. Go ahead there. Um before this came before us back in January and there was a recommendation for approval for this item from staff, uh, with conditions and the conditions just saying basically that there could be uh an appeal and and all that. Um but it was approval of both the front and side setbacks. Um this time around there's approval or recommendation of denial. What's changed? Um why did you

3:46:24recommend approval before and why do you recommend denial now?

3:46:34So Essentially staff did a little bit of a deeper dive from the information that was presented at last planning commission. One of those deeper dives, um, which I don't necessarily have access to building construction services acceler records. Um, I did meet with um individuals from building construction services to look into what was resubmitted after they asked for revisions required. Um the revisions that were required was the Actually, only one plan sheet. And that's why I think you got three plan sheets in here is because they only revised

3:47:04the one on the right here that had the correct setbacks. So there was only one resubmitted plan sheet where in my purview and my review is I believe that doesn't constitute as a staff bona fide error. Because the applicant knew that those rest of those plan sheets needed to be revised, including those building plans as well. And they did

3:47:28not submit. Liam, are you able to confirm that no revised narrower building, shorter building that fits within the setbacks was submitted to BCS?

3:47:41Not from my research. So I spoke to Richard DeTera from Building Construction Services, who was able to on his end pull up all of their accelerator from interface and he could only see that what was submitted on the right was resubmitted, no other planksheets were submitted.

3:47:57I need somebody to come up here, I'm sorry, I need somebody to come up here under oath and tell me whether or not A revised building plan that fits within those setbacks was submitted. We have the applicant's testimony that he submitted it. If he didn't submit it, I have a completely different opinion of this case. If he did not submit that plan, so I need to know if that plan got submitted.

3:48:29Yeah, where are the seventy foot house plans submitted?

3:48:32Seventy foot house plans submitted.

3:48:34So again. I I would have to defer to building construction services to confirm that. Okay,

3:48:40so I think Carl is gonna check.

3:48:42I I believe so too, but I can tell you when I was having my meeting with Richard Totera who pulled up the interface and shared his screen over Teams, it did not appear to me that one was submitted.

3:48:52So Richard DeTerra basically position was that only the w only this this is the only sheet that got updated is this one on the right.

3:48:59Yes, on the recent middle and I can actually pull up the recent middle date which I believe was just

3:49:07So this goes to the very first questions I asked at the outset of this hearing today.

3:49:14So on December 20th, 2021, the applicant submitted only one new plan sheet, and that is from my conversation and looking at Richard Terrett's shared screen during our meeting, that only one plan sheet was updated. And that is what it's in my staff report.

3:49:34Okay.

3:49:35But

3:49:35in Liam's defense he's relying on the

3:49:37I understand. That's why I'm asking is Carla's I I guess.

3:49:44Carla and Esther have the ability to get into the system and see what was submitted.

3:49:49You know, it it was evidently it was pretty clear it should have been clear by way of the uh regulations within the subdivision, for the subdivision, that the front setback should have been twenty-five feet and the side ten. So why would you ever submit a building that didn't comport to that without asking for uh variance right at the very beginning.

3:50:13I'm just as perplexed. I see that this is not and this is not MPUD zoning where someone has to go research a master plan. This is Euclidean zoning. Anyone can go on Municode and look up the setbacks for R2 zoning.

3:50:31So why would you submit a plan that doesn't comply? You know it doesn't comply without asking for a for a deviation. Certainly not build it.

3:50:45I think the answer to that's probably that it was a a mistake because why would you call a drainage plan that goes back to front on drainage type B? Yeah.

3:50:51Right.

3:50:52So I I I mean

3:50:58But they should have known to change the the building if they had to change the setbacks. Seventy three feet won't fit on a ninety feet lot with ten foot size. Exactly my point, yeah.

3:51:08Mr. Chairman I ask uh the applicant one more question? Yeah. So um Ask the applicant? Yes. Okay. Mr. Plummer. Um so um W what to your knowledge, what happened was was obviously the we know that the site plan was redrawn by your engineer and submitted. Did the engineer Can you say under oath that the engineer also redrew the rest of the house plans and did they submit them as well?

3:51:35Absolutely, and he's here today.

3:51:38Okay.

3:51:38He

3:51:38is

3:51:38the engineer of record, he is here today. And and Do

3:51:42do you have those seventy foot house plans?

3:51:45Yes I do. They're in my email, I can pull them up and send them right to you now. Yes.

3:51:49Okay, so it's proof that they were done.

3:51:53Right. And the only thing about the

3:51:55Do you have do you have proof that they were submitted?

3:51:57I I could only tell you that I sat down with his employee. I did do it with another person. I was not the only person. She is not here today. Um If we continue it I could bring her here, but yes, it was submitted and what I believe from understanding about not naming the sheets the same. my question would be, if I did not name them the same, And she said the system replaces the sheet with the new one if they're named the same. What

3:52:28does it do if it isn't? Does it disw discard it? So again you have proof right here so it does.

3:52:37Correct. So if it had a different name it could have just been discarded. Well if I named it sheet T instead of T.

3:52:43No, it wouldn't have been discarded, it would have just been an additional

3:52:46an additional file. So

3:52:48the

3:52:48proof should still be in there on the file in theory.

3:52:50It well based on her commerce her testimony, it only moves forward and approves the sheet that is that is substituting it. So if you're not sure,

3:53:01that's not what she said. She said it only replaces the sheet that has the same

3:53:04name. Correct. So it wo well, okay. Okay, I don't know if the r then if it's not replacing the correct sheet, I don't know that technologically does it still move it for the right-of-way.

3:53:14Yeah, you might not be able to answer that question, but perhaps staff can.

3:53:18Well it seems like Carla and Esther are looking it up.

3:53:23Okay. While they're looking it up, uh we're gonna take a five minute recess.

3:53:41A trial with eight judges.

3:53:48Yes, yes.

3:59:59Yeah.

4:00:01Yeah,

4:00:02but no.

4:01:57I don't think that's it.

4:02:07I guess once it falls out, it's different.

4:02:11I just don't understand why this guy's literally picking up any plans. Even if there was a move around the site, then we'll have a plane.

4:02:27That's okay. Right. Because you'd have to assume

4:02:33preventing it.

4:02:36None of this will happen. Right. Exactly. So I think behind you clean up.

4:02:45I don't know. Yes. Exactly. I agree with you. Don't get me wrong, he's a great guy who's like Joe. I don't think Jamie would have have done that. No. Think about where you're at. We're gonna have to make a round there, otherwise.

4:03:17Yeah, we run into it too with uh projects in Hawaii. The dog with a beach. Whitehouse. Um Or is it the eyeway, stuff with like why some people actually were the projects they've built?

4:03:31Yeah, we're just

4:03:37One thing had something to do with the

4:04:16Twenty five. buy DJ?

4:04:24Trying to look

4:06:38Are we ready? I

4:06:40gotta Get a little head book and brush up.

4:06:49Mm.

4:06:53Long five minutes ago.

4:07:03Okay.

4:07:07So were we determin able to determine anything new?

4:07:12There was no no new architectural plans admits.

4:07:17The seventy foot plan was never submitted?

4:07:19No, sir.

4:07:20Yeah.

4:07:21Okay.

4:07:22Mm.

4:07:24Yeah, you stream that's

4:07:28a good thing. Did anybody

4:07:30offer anything else? Can I just ask one one question and in that case? If there was no seventy foot building plan submitted And let's say the builder

4:07:41had the staking done

4:07:45Approved site plan on the right. And building inspections went out there to inspect the house. And they built a 70-foot house, but the plan sheet that's part of the permit said it was supposed to be a 73-foot house. What would have happened?

4:08:01Well the Yes, like we've just been discussing we've revived our system and the way we look at things based on this one. Okay. What we're the assumption we're making is a the plan reviewer approved the set plans, the 73 with conditions. They didn't turn it down. Because they feel like that all other Florida building

4:08:32core requirements were met. So they were saying, oh, Mr. Contractor. You cannot build seventy-three feet uh of house wide, you have to meet your setbacks. but every other nomenclature of your Bill Lane is correct. So make sure that your building fits your your site. So by the time they're saying oh this and that is probably why they went and draw

4:09:02a 71-foot house that will fit the structure that will fit that size. But that was never required because building review were approved with conditions. So it wasn't

4:09:18even uploaded at all. But the system's been changed to where in the future that

4:09:23would

4:09:24be required.

4:09:24Yeah. Okay.

4:09:28Okay. And then I had made a motion and gave it you were trying to Explain why this might

4:09:38be a difficulty for staff and why this

4:09:41is the

4:09:41right-of-way.

4:09:47I think you have enough evidence today to do that. I don't know that you need additional evidence, or at least l unless you tell me you need additional evidence.

4:09:55You could deny it based on what you have today. If you're inclined to approve it with conditions, I think that would be a legitimate reason to continue it so that staff could formulate conditions of approval to deal with the landscaping deficiency, the drainage deficiency, um other issues that were talked about. But um maybe staff could even make sure. The landscaping is planted so it helps the neighbor's view. I mean, th those are all things that can be done if you're inclined

4:10:25to recommend. Approval But if I don't see the b benefit of a continuance if you're inclined to deny it, unless you tell me you need more evidence.

4:10:38Uh it's what I understand there was no seventy foot submittal, correct? For building the home. So staff was testifying that that's it.

4:10:49Staff testifying they didn't receive it. The applicant testified he did submit it.

4:10:53I withdraw the motion on the floor. They they did not submit anything for seventy foot according to the county, correct? And you're absolutely sure on that one. And yet a house of seventy three foot was built, is that correct?

4:11:06Yeah.

4:11:07Yes. Okay. I heard

4:11:08at least one yes. True. Well I think do you want staff to get up and re say yes to these things? Because I think I'm just asking. I'm just I'm not sure who you're asking to. I just need care clarification for my mind. I'm not sure. I'm not sure who you're posing the question to. You're posing it to me I can't answer it. So it or is this a rhetorical question? Okay.

4:11:28Seventy three foot house was built. Yes sir. Okay. All right. I withdrew my motion

4:11:35and I'd like to make a new motion and that would be for denial.

4:11:40And I'll psych of that. I'm sorry, did I cut you off, Mr. Mutt? No, I didn't mean to.

4:11:47Okay, we have a motion on the floor and we have a second. Any further discussion on that motion?

4:11:52I guess just for my discussion and and you know again I know this is a hardship it's severe hardship that's being placed on the builder and I know there's a a lot of fingers to to be pointed and a lot of blame to go around a lot of people. Um I I expect and I am I expect you're gonna appeal um to the board and my recommendation When you go to the board is to try to rectify at least some of these deficiencies that we've noted on the the drainage and the landscaping and have some type of plan

4:12:22to try to support your case. I mean you built something out there that's drastically different than than what the rest of the neighborhood is. I mean yes it's newer. Um drive down the street you see a newer house amongst some older houses. Um But it it's it's drastically the look and the appearance is is different. So that that's that's all I have to say.

4:12:44Just to clarify one thing, if he does appeal to the board, that appeal is limited to the record of this hearing. So he cannot bring up new stuff. He can't bring up new facts. Now, the board can impose conditions if they were inclined to approve it, they can impose conditions just like you can impose conditions, but he can't introduce new facts that were not in the record of this hearing. So if you think new facts are important you prob But you want him to have an opportunity to introduce new facts,

4:13:14then you would need to continue it so that you can provide new facts. That's up to the Planning Commission.

4:13:21Can the motion be clarified please because um staff is recommending denial, so are you denying staff's recommendation of denial or you're recommending approval of staff's rec staff's recommendation of denial? Thank you, sorry. Because denying staff's recommendation

4:13:38I'm recommending denial of the variance, approval of staff's recommendation of denial. and for the exact same reasons that I cited during the original.

4:13:50Thank you.

4:13:53Decided the original hearing was that they didn't comply with any of the variance criteria. Are you that's correct. So uh you're okay with the way staff has written up the denial? Yes. Okay.

4:14:07So may may I for discussion? Yeah. So

4:14:11Do we have a second, by the way? I do, I have a second.

4:14:16Um So I I um I'm coming at this obviously as a non-builder, I'm a financial planner. So I'm I'm not a builder, I'm not a Um I don't work at the government. I'm not a government official, so I'm I've always been the outsider to these government proceedings and Um

4:14:34In my opinion, I feel like the Although there is obviously a certain amount of professional culpability. There's certain professional standard that has to be met if you're a builder. It's one thing if you're a homeowner trying to do an improvement. It's another thing if you're certified as a as a contractor. So yes, there's obviously culpability on that side. Um however admittedly there is culpability on the side of the county and I don't think it was intentional on the county's part either. You the county's doing a fantastic job. approving what they can approve, um, especially

4:15:04with all the development and building that's going on. And I think they've identified some problems with the process and and um hopefully we'll be making some changes to that process to hopefully avoid this issue in the future. That being said, I always will tend to err in favour of the private business owner, the private citizen as opposed to government. I I believe, personally, that the government should be held to a higher standard for their approvals.

4:15:35Um that if there if there was any errors made on their part, even if it was 10% of the problem, um that still is an error that that contributed to the situation happening. Again, No n not say anything bad about the county. Eric everybody's human, everybody makes errors and we're you're trying to streamline the process, so I I commend you for that. But if if there is errors being made um by the government, I don't see how holding uh even

4:16:06if there's a partial error from the the applicant, I don't see how holding them responsible for any errors that were made from the the county uh is beneficial in any way or or is the right thing to do. Um This this applicant has already suffered financial harm from this. Uh I think he said that uh they definitely have learned from this as well. Um they've built twenty four other homes or so that that there was no issues on

4:16:36and um you know this has obviously turned up to be a problem and they've suffered significant financial harm from this um already. So um I I think um some of the issues, you know, there's there's the possibility for this commission to to approve it with some of these conditions. There's initial conditions it was on when this came before the board back in January. Um That being said that there may be appeal that may be filed uh from the neighbors or from anybody else that opposes

4:17:06a decision to approve it. Um and we could also impose conditions that uh have the gutters, that have the culvert and some of these other things that are that are uh being requested. So um I understand some of the concerns of the neighbors, um, but um there's we have to be fair to everyone involved, and that includes the the the uh person that at least relied partially on the county uh in their process, and

4:17:36we've had testimony from the county that there was definitely a breakdown there. So uh for that reason I would I would uh vote nay against this motion.

4:17:47Anyway, Pete.

4:17:49Well the only thing I would comment on is that the concern I had what really moved me in the direction was the County said there is no plan plans in the process for a seventy foot ha um home submitted to the county. And to me that's a a large mistake. I think any repetal builder Yeah. Would definitely follow up on the documentation that he needs to provide. And

4:18:20sometimes Mistakes are made. I realize that. But this is kind of a what you refer to as a blatant mistake. And I think that perhaps the

4:18:34individual will learn from the mistake or realize he has. I've heard testimony this time and in the previous time. And I concur that uh with probably many of us on the board that we are in favor of the private enterprise, that the private enterprise private businesses are the backbone of this country, although that may or may not be the case going forward. But that's aside. I think it

4:19:04sends a clear message that, at least in my opinion, I can't speak for the rest of the folks on the board. that if you are going to be in the construction business, do your due diligence. And that's all I have to

4:19:17say. Um Peter, so so did the I believe maybe I have to ask the clerk, um I believe the applicant testified under oath that he did submit that but it wasn't received, you know. So the building department's saying they didn't receive it, but the applicant testified that he did send it and he he did have He does have those seventy foot plans.

4:19:38I can't confirm like nor deny um at the moment. Please

4:19:42don't raise your hand. We're not taking

4:19:43any tests. I would say that's kinda like a he said, she said type of right situation and and uh uh there are alternatives that all of us have that we want to use if we feel like we have been uh mistreated by government. So there are alternatives.

4:20:02Jared, this isn't like a case of in the old days where we went down there with a signed and sealed paper set of plans and said we turned it in and somebody accidentally filed it in the trash, you have to upload this to a computer system.

4:20:25So if was either uploaded or it wasn't. And what they're telling me is it wasn't uploaded. I understand and I personally believe that they did. They went ahead with a building review that wasn't the same building as that's shown on the site plan. She explained that maybe I I can understand that happening, but at the end of the day they They're a group of professionals. They had

4:20:55a responsibility to coordinate their plans and they needed to upload the proper set of plans and notify somebody. Today, just today before I came here today, I submitted a revised drainage plan. Another engineer had done a drainage plan and then somebody asked me to get involved with it. And not only did I upload the plan to the Acela system, then I sent an email and alerted the

4:21:25particular reviewers for that issue that that was there and that's what the responsibility is of that organization. I understand that there

4:21:35are

4:21:35some weaknesses in the building department system, but ultimately That's why builders, contractors, engineers, architects and the like, geologists, real estate brokers, all have to be licensed. Attorneys.

4:21:58Chris,

4:21:59you have anything? No, I I was just gonna follow up on what John said, but for the last piece of testimony that we heard, excuse me, I probably would have leaned towards Derek's direction, but the fact that there was never a seventy foot set of plans that was uploaded changed my complete opinion of of the whole case. Well,

4:22:22No, you already made it okay. Well, um in spite of the fact that I think um it was a foolish thing to submit a plan that on the face was out of the bounds of what the requirements are, um as far as the setbacks and uh

4:22:43I do think there were was a lot of culpability enough to go around to a lot of people. And uh and I tend to uh lean toward what Derek is thinking because Um obviously they have suffered. I and I think maybe the the thing that bothers me is that the the real problem is you can't condition them to squee m make the house smaller. It's it's already built. Um But, you

4:23:13know, I am willing to consider condi other conditions that might s serve to

4:23:21you know, soften the the uh the impact of uh of what they've done.

4:23:29Uh obviously it's a it is a new house. It's probably an attract it seems to be an attractive house. But there are l uh some things that that you just can't fix. However, because of because I feel like um there uh there's culpability on both sides, on maybe more than two sides, um, I think it's a it's only fair maybe to to um do a

4:23:59continuance and give give this person, this company an opportunity to to do whatever needs to be done to get it to give themselves another chance. I mean I try to put myself in other people's shoes when I make a decision and I know there's times when I'm screwed up and I wish I you know I would have wanted a second chance and have given given been given second chances. Yeah. Um,

4:24:30I also put wanted to put myself in this in the shoes of the other people that live there. So that's what I try to do. And um in this case I just think from from my perspective, I would rather have a continuance and try to get some kind of reasonable agreement. I I just can't see having the man tear the house down, which is ultimately what could happen. So That's

4:25:00how I'm gonna vote.

4:25:04Okay. Anything else? If not, we have a motion on the floor to approve the staff recommendation for denial.

4:25:15Can I ask for one more clarification on the motion? Yeah. I just want to make sure we're clear that you support denial on for both the front setback and the side setback. Yes. Okay.

4:25:28Okay, so we have a motion on the floor to approve staff's recommendation for denial. If you vote in favor of the motion, then the application is denied. Okay. So all in favor of the motion on the floor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign? Nay. Nay. Ay. So we'll have a roll call vote.

4:25:54To be clear, Mr. Williams did not vote on this unless there's a tie. Yeah. Which hopefully well I don't know maybe we will have one.

4:26:05Okay. So that's our old call book.

4:26:08Mr. Jamie Girardi? Nay. Mr. Derek Pontletz? Nay. Mr. Peter Hensel?

4:26:13Yes.

4:26:14Mr John Moody? Aye. Mr Christopher Poole?

4:26:17Aye.

4:26:19And Mr. Chairman Charles Gray?

4:26:20No.

4:26:22So it's three against three.

4:26:24Okay, before we have Mr. Wingham break the tie, I just want to confirm that he does do that. Denise, unless you you can pull up the code faster than me.

4:26:34Well I'm confirming because I know the code and he does vote in ties. Okay.

4:26:39So Mr. Williams.

4:26:42So very difficult, but um again a house ev i it's a big mistake. It's gonna be there a long time. So I'm gonna vote aye. Okay.

4:26:53So um the motion passes. Um And the application is denied.

4:27:05Okay, let's move on to the next one.

4:27:30Hey Miss Amy.

4:27:32Been patiently sitting in the back for a long time.

4:27:35She's used to what she sat through.

4:27:38Can you just take a walk every time I go through the bigger

4:27:40Sure. Sure, you just bring in some warm food. Warm cookies. Yeah, cookies.

4:27:50I'm at a protein bar, so

4:27:53We got a whole bag of almonds. I think you So you buy one of the house for taking a five minute break because of Yeah.