Appeal of Planning Commission Decision of April 6, 2023, Denying Variance Petition No. VA-2103 for a 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

1:59:49Extra album. Excellent P53. Yeah, approved.

1:59:54We have approved the publication of the hearing of this matter in the August 23rd edition of the Tampa Bay Times, in addition, affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.

2:00:13Mr. Chairman, just to remind you, this is an appeal from the Planning Planning Commission decision. It is a on the record appeal. No new evidence may be presented to you for this hearing. You are reviewing the the hearing that and transcript that was made at the Planning Commission.

2:00:38On April sixth, twenty twenty three.

2:00:46Okay, Delice.

2:00:47Commissioner Starkey's Planning and Development. Um Mr. Steinsmeter explained what you're doing today. So this is an appeal of the Planning Commission decision of April 6, 2023, which denied variance petition BA 2103, which was for a 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 R2 low density residential district. That is PDD 230543. It's located in south-central Pasco County on the south

2:01:18side of Victoria Road, approximately 215 feet west of Sheffield Road. This is the an aerial. Uh of course it doesn't show the house on it yet because it was taken some time ago.

2:01:30There's no excuse me, no house there yet?

2:01:32It there is a house, there's a built house, but this particular aerial doesn't show that. But we'll show it in a few minutes on the site plan.

2:01:38Okay.

2:01:40But the house is built, yes, it's physically there. It just has not received a certificate of occupancy.

2:01:47So this is the uh the land the land use res 6. The zoning is R2, which is a low density residential district. This is the site with with the variance. Site without the variance. These are all things that were shown to the Planning Commission because you're only subject, as Mr. Steinsteider stated, to the record of the Planning Commission. And Elizabeth Belair, Senior Assistant County Attorney, will be playing the verbatim police for us today. Um So on January 5th,

2:02:172023, the Planning Commission heard the variance request and denied the request based on not meeting the criterion 407.2.d.1. A second application for the variance was filed and heard by the Planning Commission on April 6th. This is the reason behind today's appeal. the recommendation of denial of the subject variance request. The staff found the reasons set forth in the variance application did not justify branding of the variance as the variance applicant was not able to provide substantial confident evidence that

2:02:48they met the criteria in the LDC 407.2.2.1. The Planning Commission agreed with Planning and Development Department's recommendation of her denial. There was a tie vote with three A's and three nays, and the District School Board appointee who is required to vote in the case of a tie broke the tie and voted A to approve PDD's recommendation of denial of variance. So on this appeal, as Mr. Steinteiner stated, there's no new testimony, may be heard or presented. The review is based on the transcript and record of

2:03:18the piece of the Planning Commission. The BCC may reweigh evidence previously presented to the Planning Commission and may modify, adopt, or reverse legal conclusions and conditions of the BC. The board has the authority to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission based on the failure to meet the criteria for approval of a variance, specifically 407.2.D of the Land Development Code. Grant the appeal and variance based on BCC's determination that the variance may be issued to correct a bona fide staff error that has been made and has led to the construction that does not comply with the code. Grant

2:03:48the appeal and variance based on the BCC's determination that the criteria in 407. Have been met. Um, and also to grant the appeal adherence based on the BCC's determination that the criteria have been satisfied by acting adding conditions, it can also remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for additional evidence. And those are part of your motions in your agenda packet. So um

2:04:15The uh the recommended motion is to uphold a decision of the Planning Commission based on the failure to meet the criteria for approval for a variance, specifically 407.2.d of the land development code. And as you can see, there are there are four other um four alternative motions that you can approve. So I if I'm here for any questions and uh the applicant is here to provide information.

2:04:39Okay. Any questions for staff?

2:04:46How Okay.

2:04:50So they d I guess they didn't build the they've already built the home. Correct?

2:04:54Yes, the home is there um existing on the property. And I will show you the site plan.

2:05:03Now the problem here is the fact they did not

2:05:06The problem here is that they did not comply with the back the front setback. The front setback um in the R two low density residential district is twenty-five feet from the front property line. They built a house that is less than twenty-five feet. I sadly I can't read what is there even with my glasses, uh but I would think that it's at twenty feet or so. And uh it's also based on the east side setback, which is supposed to be 10 feet, and the house has been built at 8.5 or 8.6 feet.

2:05:36Oh. But yes the house is physically there.

2:05:39What's uh what's on the side now?

2:05:41The minimum side is ten. And

2:05:44But that's what it's supposed to be, but it's

2:05:45supposed to be. Right now it's at eight point five or eight point six. You may be able to see it on your screen better than I can. Yeah,

2:05:50I can't.

2:05:51I didn't print that page, sadly.

2:05:53So how much is it? In actuality?

2:05:56Instead of

2:05:56ten?

2:05:57Eight point six or eight point five?

2:06:00Oh eight point six or

2:06:01eight point

2:06:01five?

2:06:02Yeah, and it's supposed to be ten. And the front is supposed to be 25.

2:06:08How do we do that?

2:06:09Yeah, so uh it's a b um I'm sorry, it's right here. It's from twenty their requests from twenty twenty five feet to twenty feet and the side is from ten feet to eight point five feet.

2:06:18Okay. How do you get this far in being built? I guess our inspectors we don't look at setbacks?

2:06:26We do have folks here from um building construction services who can answer that question. Of course it's going to be based only on the information that's on the record and they can answer those questions.

2:06:35Can we have someone address it?

2:06:37Yeah, I'm not sure. Yes, I think Anth Anthony Mistraccio might be here to answer that, if I'm not mistaken.

2:06:45So as Anthony approaches I'll ask Anthony, says Anthony if you would talk through the timeline as far as how the permitting part went and what you found.

2:06:54Uh Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ode. Um how it had actually encroached was the structure was set for plan review, it went through plan review, and in the current system, plan review including zoning review was done simultaneously. So these were done together. The plan review was approved. And the plans examiners have no idea of the actual setbacks. They're looking at the structure and the site plan as it's submitted. So

2:07:24it goes to a development code review, which is zoning in our case, and it notices a deficiency. Um contractor addresses that deficiency, uploads the revised site plan. However, when it got issued, there is one flaw with the seller that we discovered. And if you do not call the diagrams exactly the same. So if this diagram was labeled A1, The revision must also be

2:07:54labeled A1. But in this case, they took the site plan and drainage plan and made it one document. Whose name? Uh the contractor. So now when they upload this document, it recognizes something different. So it keeps, a seller keeps the two old documents and now inserts the new site plan drainage plan, which is correct. They corrected dimensions, submitted it for plan review, got review it approved. And

2:08:24it got stamped. Now when a seller issues the permit, it's all electronic. A seller puts a little watermark in the upper left hand corner on all pages. It's done automatically. However, the site plan that's approved has three stampings in it. One the upper watermark, another one I'm not sure what it delineates, and one just adjacent to that delineating the the setbacks. And in this case, the setbacks are also delineated on the actual building permit

2:08:55when it's issued. So the face of the permit shows the setbacks set right inside that permit box under the description. But that's what had occurred. And on the sides you're looking at one foot six inch encroachment. On um looking at the house on the right side, the left side's almost the same. And the front is uh of course five feet because of twenty to twenty five foot. But that's how it actually occurred.

2:09:26Anthony, talk about the uh home size from seventy foot to seventy three foot.

2:09:30Oh, that was picked up at the planning. That's where the plan review and the actual zoning review differ. So it goes through plan review, they submit a set of plans. A plans examiner only looks at the structure. So we make sure that the structure meets the Florida Building Code, and they approve it, and it moves on. But now when it comes into our zoning development code review, they look at the setbacks. When they submitted the drawings back to change the the width

2:10:00of the house, the actual structure was not altered. So the site plan was altered to show the reduction in in dimensions, but the actual drawings, the blueprints, were not altered. But in the field, if they use the correct survey that the resubmitted survey that they provided to us to answer the comments, the inspector would have picked it up. it would have been noticed at inspection. But because we had our watermark

2:10:31stamp on the upper left corner of the initial survey that was incorrect, that survey was used in the field so it met all criteria. So there would be no cause of alarm by the inspector. He looks at it, 8'6, 8'5, 20 foot front, we're good to go.

2:10:50So so what you're telling us A sala or When it went through the plan review and it passed. never was picked up to to be changed in the field. But we've had our mark that it basically was approved. And that's what they built too, right? Um sounds like so who made the mistake? 'Cause it doesn't sound like the contractor did. He went by his plans, but He should have known

2:11:16the mistake, sir. Um, I was a contractor all my life. I knew exactly what I was building. And especially if I did something incorrectly and then resubmitted a drawing with the correct size of the structure and it wasn't built to that. In my opinion the contractor has responsibility to ensure those drawings.

2:11:37That's that's really outside the record. You did not testify the that specific information to the Planning Commission.

2:11:43Uh first time I was here, uh no ma'am.

2:11:46Uh okay. You were only looking at the April sixth hearing as well.

2:11:49Correct. Okay. Yep. I have all the literature that I put together for it.

2:11:55Yeah.

2:11:55Yeah.

2:12:01So I g guess all the weight lays on the contractor built the house too big for the lot. Bayonet Point. Seth.

2:12:09Yes,

2:12:09sir.

2:12:10And I I I think I listened to this at the Planning Commission, but it seems like it was a while ago. Um it's blocking the view of the neighbor. It's affecting the neighbor's house, is that right?

2:12:22That's what the neighbor has said to the planning commission.

2:12:25Um What I'm looking at the neighborhood And all the other houses are Further back. So it seems like it would have been obvious that this one is so much closer than the other ones. But man, I I feel for the builder too with Not a fan of a cellar, let me just say not a fan of a cellar. It's a top. I don't I I guess we hear from the applicant and

2:12:53Uh any of the questions for

2:12:55Sterf.

2:12:57I

2:12:57got plenty of questions. I don't know if I get any answers for

2:13:00that.

2:13:01Well no now's the time to fire away. Or can we or you can wait till after the applicant speaks?

2:13:06I'd let the applicant

2:13:16Good afternoon. My name is Ken Dandor. I'm the attorney for the applicant. I live in uh St. Petersburg. And the applicant is the Soho Builders Residential Commercial Projects Incorporated, which is owned by Ladies Vega. Ladies Vega is a disabled Marine veteran and she went into this construction business. Sir, I will remind you you're limited to the record at Planning Commission. Alright,

2:13:46I believe that's well it should be in the record. Anyway, I apologize if it's not. Okay. So she suffered s so far $68,000 in damages because she had sold this house back at the end of 2022 twice and it fell through. Because there wasn't a certificate of occupancy. And the lender is now going to foreclose on this house in November after they filed lease pendants. SOHO

2:14:17Builders and Santa Fe Remodeling Inc. would ask the appeal be granted based upon the shared responsibility. for the issue at hand. Given the house that was built was built exactly to the county approved plan set. In fact, prior to pouring the foundation A form board survey, also known as a tie in survey, was performed by the licensed surveyor. Uploaded

2:14:47to the permit, provided in print form, and reviewed both electronically and in the field by C Stephen Switzer, the field inspector for Pasco County. We ask that, if necessary for approval, the c conditions could be added to facilitate approval. Some conditions discussed during the various hearing included adding a culvert, gutters to the home, and adding landscaping

2:15:17to improve the overall appearance and views from the neighbor's property, even though none of that's required by the County Code, but we're willing to do that. As evidence that the county shares in the responsibility, many statements were made during the variance hearing and include April 6, 2023, Scott Carley, Pasco County Structural Chief Building Specialist, transcript on page 68, line 12 through 70, and

2:15:48line 8. attachment for. Specifically mister Carley stated, quote, We approved a plan that's too big. Close quote. And quote. Forty percent of this is on us because we should have never approved a plan that was too big for the lot, and that's why I'm here. I want to be fair to everybody. Period. Close quote. He further explains that the county's

2:16:18review system needs a little bit of tuning. See the transcript on page 89, line 20. four through page ninety, line twenty two. Also on April 6th, during that variance hearing, Vice Chair Girardi agreed. that a bona fide error has been committed. See the transcript on page 93 at line 3 through 22. Also at that hearing on April 6th PDD

2:16:49and PC heard new testimony from Scott Carley, Pasco County structural chief building specialist. See the transcript beginning on page 68 of line 15 through 25, attachment number one. Specifically he said, quote So we have a process that we do at Pasco. We went to Computer Approval Plans Examiner. So because of that, we can all see it at the same time. Zoning got hold of

2:17:19it, said no good. Electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and building said yes, we're good. We approved a plan that's 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 process. We know zoning needs to be approved before the rest of them do. This is going to help us close quote. Also on April 6th, during the various hearings,

2:17:50PDD and PC heard new testimony from Scott Carley. See the transcript on page 69, line 5 through 18. Specifically quote. The four board survey is another step that we've had. So we get a proposal and then we get a four-board survey right after it's formed up. It's confirmed that it's in the right spot before concrete.

2:18:21My guys went there. And the first page on this plan is the approved wrong one. where it's got that stamp on there where the foreboard 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

2:18:51a plan that was too big for the lot, and that's why I'm here. I want to be fair to everybody, okay? Also, Scott Carley said Page 89, line 24 to 25, and continues on line page 90, 1 through 6. Professionals are supposed to act like it. So we definitely, so definitely, this lands on him. But it's a

2:19:21learning curve for us because we are doing digital reviews. Back when we had one page to review, Zoning said yes and then went down the list. So we knew what everybody was saying yes to. We do over 1,200 inspections a day. This is the first hiccup. We have a great system. Just a little bit of tuning. Well, the little bit of tuning should not come at the expense of Miss Vega. The little bit of tuning

2:19:51should come at the expense of the county. We ask you to approve this plans, reverse. What happened below on August the sixth and um grant order that the certificate of occupancy be issued by the end of this week because now she has another buyer who is also a disabled veteran from the Vietnam War. And we have to get on this so we can get that person to buy the house. On

2:20:22January 5, 2023, the Planning Commission heard the variance request number 2101 and denied the request based on meeting none of the LDC, Section 407.2 D1, zoning variance criteria for approval. The Planning and Development Department's recommendation for variance request was to approve the requested variance request.

2:20:49On April 6, 2023, the variance was heard and was denied. The vote was 3-3, with an additional tie-breaking vote cast by the Secretary for a denial of 4-3. So here's the alternates.

2:21:08Grant the appeal and variance based upon the Board of County Commissioners determination that the variance may be issued to correct a bona fide staff error that has been made and has led to construction. It does not comply with the code. The staff went out there, they personally examined it, they approved the foundations where they were. And these foundations, it's five feet extra long in the front for the garage. That's only five feet. And we have a

2:21:38picture of the house we can put up now and show you. Can we put up the pictures please?

2:21:46The house actually improves all of the values of the homes. Not really.

2:21:50Where's the landscaping?

2:21:52Pardon me?

2:21:53Where's the landscaping? Where's the trees?

2:21:56There's one tree

2:21:57put up. There's nothing in here. And and also this is not matching the front elevation in the building from it. The windows

2:22:06are totally different. Mr. Plummer, can you answer that the question of the But

2:22:22I get I get frustrated when I see someone build a house with the landscape.

2:22:31Is is that the uh pictures that were presented to the Planning Commission?

2:22:36Um these are in the plans that were in the variance.

2:22:40Were those presented to the planning commission on equal six?

2:22:43That's not what you built. At least that's not this. I mean right those windows Uh over there are different. Those windows over there are different. Uh these have mol those have mullions, this does not. Okay, let's just look at what was in the packet. Okay. Well

2:23:03Uh that's just my own little detail that I saw. Let me hold it for

2:23:08you.

2:23:08So I I agree. I believe according to

2:23:10that section.

2:23:15So that is something that we identify yourself for the record. Okay, my name is Patrick Plummer. I work for Soho Builders Residential Commercial Projects Inc. Uh my address is 2801 Durant Road, um Val Rico, Florida. Um so uh this is not something that that has come up either, but I do see that this um All the way to the left you see two smaller windows. There is a tub underneath there. So I believe um

2:23:44Well, I can only assume that if there's a tub below those windows, that is why this size window was not installed so it wouldn't you wouldn't view into the bathroom and see um any part of the bathroom. But

2:23:57then there's another window that's a little teeny window. I'm just saying it's not doesn't match the elevation. I don't know what happens when they do inspections, but something's not the same. But I I'm just appalled at the lack of answers. I don't think that helps the name property. But that is a little penkeep of mind that everyone here knows. Sorry, great. That brings down the main one.

2:24:20It was discussed in I believe in the variance hearing that um Uh there are different opinions on the aesthetics of the home. Um

2:24:28there's no trim, there's no architectural details. Now one.

2:24:34Um everyone that we've spoken to finds the House appealing. Um I understand that's your your opinion. Um

2:24:44However, we

2:24:45don't allow we don't we don't allow these in MPGs. We they have to have some kind of architectural detail in other houses, right?

2:24:55Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Starkey, I'll remind you this is a variance hearing. You're not here to design design the house.

2:25:04Well he said it improved the enabler.

2:25:06But yes, he opened the door for it.

2:25:10I jumped. But I feel for him.

2:25:14So in I guess to sum it up in essence When the original plans were submitted, they requested a re the Pasco County requested a revision. Um Pasco County states that only one page was uploaded as a revision, which is the site plan. Um

2:25:35And that led to somehow in the system out of twenty-six approved pages only one was the correct site plan of the house with the ten foot setbacks and twenty-five in the front. The two additional pages which were also marked site plan and were stamped approved had eight and a half foot setbacks and twenty in the front. The following 23 pages of the plans, all

2:26:05signed by or approved by Pasco County, were approved, were of the wrong size house, the larger house, 73 foot wide. Um when When the county approved the plans, they were emailed to the surveyors. They went out and staked out the four corners. In the previous hearing they did admit that when they went out to lay out the house They did notice one page was didn't coincide with the other twenty-five. And

2:26:36they assumed incorrectly that that page was the wrong page and the other twenty five were correct. They laid out the four corners of the house. Um the subcontractors went out there and according to the four corners and the approved plans on site. started building the house. Um prior to pouring the foundation there was a form board or s or tie-in survey done by the surveyors, the same surveyors.

2:27:05I work for the construction company and I supervise.

2:27:07Okay, so when you can see the plans, you know it was supposed to be a seventy three seventy foot house that's built seventy three. When did you Pick that error up.

2:27:16We caught that um when the ha all the inspections were done and we we got the tie-in survey, um the final as built from the survey company and submitted it for the CO. That's when we realized

2:27:29when a contractor's permitting a project and he's building a seventy foot house, does the contractor ever go check to see if the subs are doing the right work?

2:27:38So this is something that we are now better for also because when we received an approval, yes

2:27:44or no would be good.

2:27:47Uh I'm sorry. Um

2:27:52It it's hard to answer that as a simple yes or no because if we were working off an approved set of plans and we do make the mistake, once they're approved, our mistake was not verifying what was approved. And the reason why the

2:28:06contract is building it. Some of us may be inspected, but you're the contract, you're building a building that you've made a contract with your person.

2:28:12And all the plans are of the seventy three foot house, not a seventy foot. And no one caught the error that all the approved plans which are here.

2:28:21Who should have caught the arrow?

2:28:25Well when

2:28:28I believe that Just as the Senior engineer stated in the on record, the Pasco engineer. The county should not have approved. the wrong set of plans and following that I do agree the contractor should have reviewed the plans.

2:28:45Should have picked up the R. And should not have submitted the wrong plans. And and should not have built the wrong plans.

2:28:50And the

2:28:51reason that shouldn't know the setbacks?

2:28:54Yes. And the r the reason that it wasn't caught is is simply that when you get an approved set of plans from the county, There's no alarm bells telling you Let me make sure this is correct.

2:29:10Now we do have a process and and and any plans that get approved are all being reviewed now internally in the company to make sure that the county has not incorrectly stamped the wrong set of plans. So I believe that As a construction company, yes, there was a human error. We absolutely it was a it was an error. There was no intent to build the wrong house. There was we there was nothing gained financially. It wasn't to skirt

2:29:40some rule. It was a human error. And and to this date, um, it has cost the owner of the company about forty seven thousand dollars in in penalties, finance and interest. So sh the issue is it she's not escaping um penalties. She's not getting away with something. If it there's not It was not built to her benefit. Just skirt some rule. There was an error committed. And we

2:30:10admit our um

2:30:14our responsibility in avoiding this type of error and reviewing the plans. Um it was built on the approved plans and then The inspector himself admitted that when he went out to the site Those three same pages that we had were on were at the site. And he didn't catch it either. Um because there were three copies.

2:30:42And I think what we have realized is The county says that this is the official site plan that has three stamps. However, at the bottom it says drainage type B and also site plan. There's two more copies. That are approved by the county. that have the approved stamp that only say site plan.

2:31:09So apparently The surveyor said that also when he went out there to stake out the house He doesn't stake it out based on the drainage plan. So he went to the second page. And so nobody compared this one single sheet to all the rest. to realize that the setbacks were different. So everyone built it based off the one that just says cyclin. Including the inspectors they went out.

2:31:38So we're at a we're just obviously in this situation where The the plans were approved. We didn't catch the error. The house was built. The county didn't catch the error. And To a certain extent the catalyst of all this to s to some percentages the plans, you know, twenty five of twenty six pages are wrong. So had that not occurred, I don't believe we would be here today.

2:32:08So if the wrong plans get submitted, we wouldn't be here today.

2:32:13Um

2:32:17I'm just asking a straight question. If the wrong plans didn't get submitted, would we be would we be here today?

2:32:26I don't believe it would be here today if if the architect had drawn up the plans correctly um and the correct plan submitted, that is correct. We wouldn't be here today.

2:32:35And if the contract had gone out once everything was set to check the setbacks, we wouldn't be here today.

2:32:41Um that's correct and and that is something that w we should not rely on the the certified surveyors um you know or or or just take for granted that these are the approved plans. We should have reviewed the plans and we and we admit that and understand that we're not skirting that we should have reviewed that. It was an honest mistake. And and that's why we're here today to try to rectify that mistake. The circumstances we're in is that we have a house that

2:33:12uh due to the fact that the left side is a bathroom all the way back Um it it to modify it would make that side of the house unusable.

2:33:24Well that's another question. And we talked about culverts. It's on page seventy-three. I don't see any culverts here.

2:33:32Are there culverts in the neighborhood? Yes. Um the major probably more than 95%, if not 99% of the homes do have culverts. The engineer record who drew up these plans did a site study based on the survey. and he did not find that there was a sufficient ditch or swale in the front of the property. and he found that the way it was designed it would not impede the stormwater. Um the permit was issued without a culvert and it was built without a culvert.

2:34:02We are happy if the board would approve uh this appeal to add these conditions that a culvert should be installed. Um if you feel one is necessary. I'm not sure Pasco County could testify if they n even though it wasn't required when the house was built. If they since change their mind and they want a covert, we will do a covert. Um we would also we have a neighbor that discussed gutters. They would like more containment of the water. We're happy to do the gutters and we are happy to to

2:34:32do um significant landscaping to beautify the problem.

2:34:36I don't want I don't want to get off track to what we're here for. I wanna stick to the the basic thing, but I'm just bringing that up as was in the record.

2:34:43Commissioner Weightman.

2:34:44Thank you, Chair. I guess we work with Ms. Blair on this. She's doing the record policing, but

2:34:53it'll be kind of torque, my guess is that.

2:34:57So what is what's the length of the driveway? Correctly.

2:35:01The length of the drive where you're asking me?

2:35:03What's the length of this driver?

2:35:05Somebody. Holler it out. It it looks to be approximately from the from the edge of the road to the house, approximately thirty two feet.

2:35:16That's longer than what we approve in uh town home communities or other rentals when we have these driveway these driveway issues for parking. Just comment there. But if you've the fact that the planning commission vote was what? Four to three to three. School board made it four. So four three.

2:35:36So if the house is twenty feet set back from the property. line, how could the driveway be 32 feet?

2:35:44From the edge of the road I said there's about twelve to fifteen feet to the edge of the road, which is the edge of the road to the property line, and there's twenty feet from

2:35:53So your driveway is twelve to fifteen feet. It's not thirty two.

2:35:58Um

2:35:59it I Because you're taking into account the your it's it's public right away that your your

2:36:06property line to the house is twenty feet. From the property line. Is twenty feet. Twenty feet. And and from the property line to the edge of payment is another twelve to fifteen additional.

2:36:16So how long is this to the garage door?

2:36:19I'm sorry, sir.

2:36:20What's the answer? How long is this to the from the road to the garage door?

2:36:24According to what we have here it should be at least thirty two feet from the roof the edge of pavement to the house, it should be about thirty two feet.

2:36:36Mr. Landis?

2:36:38Commissioner Weightman, I know the question you're asking because what we've been looking at is from property line. So from the property line to the garage door, it's actually twenty feet.

2:36:48Twenty. And what have we been approving historically, for example in in these other communities?

2:36:54Yeah, you've been approving fifteen feet. Yeah.

2:36:58The setback in the neighborhood that was 25.

2:37:01But but for the record and it's remember it's an R two low density residential district where the front setback is twenty five feet. It's a Euclidean district, not an MPUD.

2:37:11I get it. But my point is is we we approve rental and other products in my opinion. This at the end of the day, this is home ownership. This isn't a rental product. Somebody's gonna buy it. It's gonna add value. We're a foot and a half off on either side and five foot off in the front. So when you look at the quality of product investment, I don't I personally don't believe that it was uh

2:37:39uh uh uh intent to be off by a t you know, a foot and a half on either on either either side here. I don't I think that that was done intentionally look at what it's cost this business owner. Who's trying to provide housing? in our area where people want to live.

2:37:58I guess my next question, I don't know if this is a legal question, but how much is this house being sold for? That's

2:38:04not within

2:38:06I can't

2:38:06ask that question. That's not in the realm of it of of a legitimate basis for a variance or or what

2:38:15I

2:38:15think is

2:38:15that's that question to get to a a point here? No? No.

2:38:21The the only value of the home that is in the record from below is what it would have cost what they could have possibly have made off of it, but I'm not quite able to find that I don't know what's being sold for now, but

2:38:39I think I think I think my intent to my comments are kind of I think people understand what I'm what I'm getting at here. I just I hate

2:38:50I don't think we need to go nuclear here is what I'm saying.

2:38:53But uh and Mr.

2:38:55Stark.

2:38:55I I see both sides, I really do. Um but just because I listened to the Planning Commission meeting, can I say something that I heard?

2:39:02Only if it's the April sixth hearing, not the January hearing, because there were two. The appeal is only at the April sixth hearing. Uh this is one where The neighbor with the neighbor? The neighbor was at the January hearing. Okay, so I can't say that. They did submit some letters for the record that were received in the filed at the at the meeting for April sixth. So I can say something? You can, yep, those are in the record. But relating to what there's submitting in those letters, nothing outside of those letters.

2:39:37Well, I'm seeing it that go to someone else while I see the comment that I want to say is in here.

2:39:45The only other thing I wanted to point out i on this site plan is that only Wait a minute. 29 feet. Did you you're builder? Oh, yeah.

2:40:00The managing director. for for the actually the developer. There's a correction here. They keep referring to s to Soho Builder's Residential Commercial Projects Inc. as the builder. The builder is Santa Fe Remodeling Inc. They're the record they're the permit holder and they're the builder. That's it right we're the developer.

2:40:19Chairman Mariano. So in this process They claim 40% egg on the county's face. What's it what's it what's it realistically? I mean obviously there's human error on both sides. I think we can all agree to that. But in what pivotal steps did the county not catch something to navigate this back into the right way? Like early, like when would before all this thing needs a CO in its own free, right? Because this building I assume is

2:40:50safe. This is a safe building to standard. So when in this process Did the county could the county or should the county have stepped in Instead Ooh, timeout here. before they kept before they kept going. Our job, the county's job, as a quality control Regu

2:41:10regulated. In my opinion, the county did step in. So this is the complex. They rejected the plans. And they took they told them that the setbacks had to that they they were not in compliance with the Euclidean setbacks for this lot.

2:41:28and they resubmitted correct plans.

2:41:34The issue then becomes, did they submit a full set? Did they only submit the one page? But They were told that they that that the initial submittal to the county was wrong.

2:41:49And

2:41:49they needed to

2:41:50fix it. So how do we not know within our system what How many pages were submitted?

2:41:58From the record I can tell you what what I they think happened that the initial discussion dealt with they being our s our staff trying to explain what happened that um they did not W after the zoning was triggered to say, No, it's not the right size, that only went out to that one depart only zony knew about it being the wrong size. And the record goes on to talk about the other reviewers not knowing and that's what Mr. Carly was referring to in in in the record.

2:42:29And then later at the end of the transcript there was discussion regarding whether or not truly 26 sheets were replaced or just the one because of the Acela system does not show that the twenty-five other sheets were actually submitted. And that became a bit of discussion at the end of the transcript and swayed some of the the the the commissioners, planning commissioners to then vote no.

2:43:01So does a cell uh If you submit it, does a seller say it's submitted?

2:43:06That's not a question I can answer. I don't recall that specifically from the transition.

2:43:10Anthony should be able to answer that question.

2:43:14bit. Can

2:43:14I step to the side, please? Anthony Kmano.

2:43:20Commissioner, you're you're correct. Uh once it's uploaded, it will identify that individual that has a rejection in our staff, and the seller will acknowledge that it is uploaded the document.

2:43:31So the is the probability of a seller not reading twenty-five additional pages is what? What's the probability of a sell failing?

2:43:40Um Acela would not recognize that the site plan had changed. Acela just recognizes that the county individual uh denied the zoning. So Acela thinks the remainder of the structure is good. It's only gonna look for the site plan.

2:43:57So the remaining twenty-five pages that are in question now.

2:44:03spit out that there's twenty f on top of the one page there's twenty-five additional pages put in. If it doesn't read it, that means twenty-five pages weren't

2:44:10put

2:44:11in, is what you're

2:44:11saying? Correct. In this case it only wanted one. The seller was only looking for one sheet or two if it didn't have drainage in site plan. That's all the seller was looking for. All

2:44:21the rest was improved. Okay, well that's an important clarifying point that wasn't, I don't think, clear in all this dialogue here. The seller only wanted one sheet. So we don't need to be talking about the 25 other sheets.

2:44:36So I was looking for you sir. So but that one she was submitted had the county's watermark on it.

2:44:43Uh when it gets approved it looks like that.

2:44:47Yes or no?

2:44:48Three three water yes. So the county's watermark was

2:44:51on all three.

2:44:51All the sheets. Uh Micella does it automatically. Watermarks all the top left corner of every sheet.

2:44:58So if you're on the other side and you see the watermark, that's kind of like green light, keep going.

2:45:03Um I disagree. Sir if I was a contractor and resubmitted a new site plan, altered the dimensions, resubmit it and got it approved with three stamps and sent back to you as approved? I know there's an issue. And I haven't heard from the builder yet. I'm still waiting to hear from the contractor. Um personal individual.

2:45:26I did testify in in the last variance. I'm sorry, sir.

2:45:31Clarify who you are for the clerk?

2:45:32Oh I am Patrick Plummer, um the manager of Soho Builders Residential Commercial Projects Inc. Um I was sitting with the engineer's assistant, her the draftswoman. while she was uploading it. And I I did testify that Um sitting with her 'cause I we did not do the submission.

2:45:53You're sitting with a Pasco County staff

2:45:55person. With the with the um the engineer of record who drew up the plans has an employee. and she is a draftswoman. Sh between the two of them they did the plans and they drew up a revision to the plans. And I was sitting next to her when she uploaded them. That's in the it's in the record. And so The we as the contractor did not submit these. It wasn't on our computers. We were not the ones submitting them. It was The draftswoman.

2:46:26But

2:46:26she

2:46:26said she was an employee of of yours.

2:46:28No. She was an employee of your own. She is an employee of the engineer. And so I I I stated I believed I viewed her upload everything. But Uh this is two and a half years ago and and again n nothing at any point in time told us anything was going wrong. So when she was doing her job, I wasn't like watching her like, did you do every page? You know, cheap. I don't know. Um so there's many

2:46:58breakdowns here, but What I would point out is that Uh we didn't draw up the plans. We sh yes, we should check them. I agree, we should check them. We're the we're we're the developer.

2:47:12Wait wait, you can't blame the engineer for the higher to

2:47:17that she drew up plants bigger than what was allowed. Well uh can I ask a few more questions?

2:47:23Um are you done with the letter?

2:47:25And you can you can Okay

2:47:26Commissioner Starkey

2:47:27and I get where you're going, but there there's some more information here that we need to weigh. Um and I can bring this in I think because this is part of the record, these letters. So That neighborhood has an HOA. I l I live in a neighborhood. that has an HOA that you have to submit your plans to and you have to follow the HOA records. Did you guys go through the HOA? Yes we did. Because in this letter she's

2:47:57saying that that um it says that the Lake Page Estates Property Owners Association um that you did not get approval from them. So you did get approval from them?

2:48:09We did and since you brought it up the Cody Holly. He managed the approval process and we we do have the proof in email and I brought a copy of what we submitted to the

2:48:20outside of the record because you did not have your realtor at the at the prior hearing he didn't he don't he don't speak I don't recall I don't recall correctly. I believe

2:48:27I mentioned him.

2:48:28You you mentioned that he had been the one that was liaison with the HOA and that you all had applied to the HOA.

2:48:33Correct. Correct.

2:48:38Because uh do most of the other houses have to have a side loading garage? I mean we have that in my neighborhood here. Not supposed to have a front loading garage.

2:48:46And so many of the homes in that neighborhood don't have side loading that it's not they're saying it's not a requirement anymore, and that's why they didn't require us to do it.

2:48:53And then it says here that um are are you a licensed contractor?

2:48:57I am not. Um Mrs. Vega is a licensed contractor.

2:48:59And Mrs. Vega was not a licensed contractor. Doctor, when this building permit was pulled.

2:49:04Correct, because she was not the builder. The builder is Santa Fe Remodeling Inc. If you g if the county pulls up the permit Um she hired Santa Fe Remodeling Inc. uh a licensed general contract, GC To build the house. Was this

2:49:20her first house? No.

2:49:27So um Commissioner, part of the reason why the neighborhood is upset about this house not being set back properly. Is that when the other houses are set to the build-to line and someone's in front of that build-to line, it changes the views of their house. So instead of seeing You know, instead of having their house designed for a what further back set back, her views out of her

2:49:57kitchen are now the wall. 'Cause I heard this when I listened to it. It's in the record. It's in the record. Our view is not the wall because the house is ten feet further. Five. Five. Five feet. Now that's that's not unsurmountable, in my opinion. if we maybe put some conditions on this house, maybe we can get somewhere. But to me, this house is an anomaly in this neighborhood. Can I can you put the pictures

2:50:28up? That that I sent I emailed to you Mike 'cause I can't remember her name. We have a picture. Wait, uh were they present to the Planning Commission? No, no. These are pictures of the neighborhood and I wanted to I can't bring them in.

2:50:39Okay. But page two sixty two has a picture of the view from the neighbor's window.

2:50:44That's part

2:50:44of the R that was part of the PowerPoint that you had.

2:50:46Yes.

2:50:47Okay, well maybe in these pictures you can see that the other houses have trim and rock and landscaping. And culverts and yours doesn't have any of that. And so Um perhaps if we could Improve the appearance of your house, put the swale back in, landscape that wall where that woman has the view of your uh masonary instead of a nicer

2:51:17view and make it make it improve her improve her aesthetics of her home.

2:51:25We will give her a five thousand dollar budget. Mr.

2:51:28Chairman Mariano Commissioner that that none of those are valid considerations for for the variance criteria and the appeal that is before you.

2:51:37Okay. Well I wasn't sure that's why he's here. That I don't know, I I don't think it's it's

2:51:44We were under the impression that one of the motions was that you could set conditions for approval. For example, I believe Motion number three, grant the appeal invariance based on the border, determine that the criteria were met by adding conditions. And so we'd be happy to give the neighborhood.

2:52:07move the setback line.

2:52:09It does.

2:52:12It just makes her that lady's view better anyway.

2:52:15I'm gonna read a little quote quote out of page ninety-three out of one twenty. It's

2:52:19pretty clear that it's a little bit.

2:52:20This is Jamie Girardi talking, goes and personally have a big problem with a lot of other things in relation to the house. I mean the driveway, the cover of the Gerard's problems. I think that needs to be addressed. Personally 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 the landscape plan in this house is Pathetic. I mean, as you're a builder, you've got to be embarrassed as a house if you're trying to sell this also landscape package you put in front of this house. And here's a key point. I mean, you shoved the house all the way up to the street, 20 feet. It does not meet, it does not

2:52:50match anything that's in the rest of the neighborhood. I can see everything else there is 25 feet. All your neighbors are over 30 feet. I see the evidence is no trees, period, are planted in the entire line. But I won't get the rest of it, but those points of like the setback and what goes on are critical.

2:53:09And um the only other thing I believe I wanted to mention was that the garage itself is the only portion in in the twenty five within the like over the setback. The rest, which is uh twenty nine feet wide. The other forty six feet, I believe, it's a seventy three foot house, so uh forty five, forty six feet of the house are twenty five feet from the road. So the the garage portion being twenty nine feet wide actually represents thirty nine percent of the

2:53:39front of the home. And so we were thinking of uh mentioning that if the county employee himself said that they shared forty percent of the responsibility. Well just approving the garage portion being in the setbacks is thirty-nine percent of the front of the house. It it kind of and if there's any logic in that it falls in line with sharing the responsibility. So the other forty five feet are set back further. And if we if we could pull up the site plan we could show that.

2:54:09Yeah, you're addressed there.

2:54:11I have a I have a question. It was indicated in this testimony.

2:54:14Go into the microphone please.

2:54:19Um the individual that post over oversaw the construction was with the engineer's drafts person when they uploaded the drawing. Correct? So it was changed, uploaded, so now it was changed to meet the setbacks. So in order to change it to meet the setbacks, the contractor's first thought is, uh oh. I gotta call the truss plant. I have an issue. My trusses are not 73

2:54:49feet anymore. They're 69 feet or whatever it may be. So was that automatically done? So were the mechanisms taken to reduce the size of the house immediately at that point when the engineer was sitting there? And this was done.

2:55:04Please let him let him talk.

2:55:06You know, in order once the dimensions change, it just doesn't affect drawing the

2:55:10Hang on a second. Please stand away from the mic so we have to get right in front of the mic.

2:55:14Everything changes. All your block calculations and

2:55:17yes, everything changes in the drawings. And the first initial thing all the contractors look at is the trusses. That's your longest lead time. All the windows, doors will be the same. Trusses is going to be your issue. So all those mechanisms. Should have been in place immediately, therefore alerting the contractor that, oh my gosh, now I have to pay attention to this. My house is too big. And none of this was done. They they did the drawing. They changed it. We approved it. Acela did send out the other

2:55:47two sheets, I can't deny that. So is there some error? Under sixty-nine thousand permits we issued that year. Okay, I can eat that. That was wrong. We've we've changed it now, so I corrected it. However, but with the contractor fully knowing, and to make all these changes to the structure itself, it should have been built per that new survey.

2:56:09Thank you.

2:56:11I just wanna reply um that yes, the original plans were sent to DJ trusses. I I I believe I spoke to that in the second hearing And they were supplied an email with the updated plans. We did in fact pay the engineer to update the plans. And he did provide an updated set of plans and we have them here. Um And that's that is what I thought I viewed being uploaded when I was with the draftswoman. And DJ Trusses did manufacture

2:56:43Again, there's errors everywhere. The trusses from the original seventy-three foot house. They did not update their drawings to the seventy foot house. and they shipped us the seventy three foot trusses and we installed them.

2:56:58So when you get the trusses I mean I don't the whole thing's just backwards. You built you were building a seventy foot house, you built a seventy-three. Engineer knew it. Trusses people knew it. The concrete block people had to know it.

2:57:11We were building a seventy three foot house. Your setbacks

2:57:14are what the setbacks are and that's gotta be like Rule One. Before you put a thing in the ground you would you would verify your setbacks, I would think.

2:57:21W and we w unfortunately we relied on the survey company when we sent them the approved set of drawings and they laid out the house. We we didn't go behind them and check their work. We trust them, they're certified surveyors. And we assumed that they were doing their job correctly and we have since changed that. We absolutely agree. Never again will we ever start even Never again will this happen again because when the When the approved plans come back from the county or city We

2:57:51will double check all the setbacks. We won't rely on anybody. We made that mistake.

2:57:56Wow. And it was a big mistake. And the mistake right now is you've got a neighborhood built a certain way, people bought in the neighborhood with a felt with a certain way, certain setbacks. As Jamie Gerardi said, you shoved that thing way up front and nobody picked up on it. I mean I have trouble understanding how, especially with Time delay is so precise or or so unsure actually of when you're gonna get your product that you're not gonna make sure that everything is built right and the one thing you can't change later on is the trusses and someone from the trust

2:58:26company doesn't pick up a from a seventy foot to a seventy three foot. I mean it's

2:58:31just that is why unfortunately that's why we're here because it was a series of errors.

2:58:35But it could have started with the very first one. With the survey being checked when the f when you guys are laying it all out to make sure it's gonna fit. Never mind you're not one of the wrong trusses. What mess was mess up all house?

2:58:48If if they had sent us the trusses for a 70-foot house, we would have said, Why are these shorter? And and maybe that would have triggered a light bulb. Let's go look at the plans. Why are we missing trusses? And

2:58:59I'm gonna say just as as we look at these things in the forward, just 'cause we got an engineer says we don't need a culvert when you get an enabled design for a culvert. I mean I there's gotta be something you're gonna do about that.

2:59:10I've just not I'm having a hard time saying that the HOA approved this when it's different than every other house in there.

2:59:18Commissioner Starkey, you you and I have d then looked at a lot of different things, especially down at Trinity, and you look at that Oak Ridge subdivision, they don't flood even though the midst of everything, because they keep all the covers in place. So just 'cause an engineer says it is somebody really Yeah, avoid. But anyway, back to this year. They've the contractor, the builder has clearly said they've made their mistakes and it's you've clearly seen from Jamie Gerard saying what the effect is on the neighborhood if you allow this to go.

2:59:48So there there is actually just for your um um just for your your understanding that the HOA is on the record as saying that the house was not approved. that they were merely looking at I believe it was the length of the driveway and I can find that

3:00:04for you. I and I believe was did he say that he was the an ex-member of the HOA or was there an actual member because um again since we've opened up the subject of them approving it or not.

3:00:19Um it was Mr Stone. Um he he spoke, Robert Stone, Licensed Community Association Manager for Lake Page. Saying that there was some wrong paperwork filed. Um he does say that aesthetically it did pass their inspections, but there were some other things they had issues with was the driveway that was all that was officially approved. Um if that's of an interest to the commissioners, that conversation begins on page 61 of the transcript and goes for a couple of

3:00:49pages after that.

3:00:52If there is any doubt as to their approval. We have the email showing it was approved.

3:00:57Th there was a m communication as well beginning on page

3:01:03Uh 63 from someone who is the former president. So, yes, there was a former president and then the current property manager. talking about whether or not the HOA had actually approved something. So If you all want to look at that it's important to you.

3:01:21I

3:01:21I

3:01:21I'm I think I'm going with that. Mr. Weightman first.

3:01:26Thank you.

3:01:26Our

3:01:26attorney has information.

3:01:28I I really like to understand from our council, County's council, did it did the HOA approve this or not? It's it's with what you're saying, it sounded like they they did. Well the HOA did. I I really it's an important component to this decision.

3:01:48They they approved.

3:01:52Mr. Sten says that the only thing that was approved is the driveway. It's a it w the the way the form is laid out is there's these boxes you have to check for what you're looking for approval. And apparently the driveway box was the only box checked. and then that's what they signed off on. So you have com kind of competing testimony a little between the HOA, you've got it, you've got the association management, and then you have a former HOA member who is in opposition to it as a violation of the restrictive

3:02:23covenants for the community. And that is on the record of page sixty three, Mr. Facetola. Um

3:02:29that's a former HOA member. What's the current HOA folks?

3:02:35Mr. Chairman Mariano. Mr. Weightman. As a as a practical matter, the HOA approval is irrelevant because they can't have standards less stringent than yours. So the commissioner can't change

3:02:48our setback.

3:02:51No, but I have a solution.

3:02:54Mr. Chairman, I think you need to finish the appeal argument and then take public comment and then go back into board discussion at this point.

3:03:03Okay. So Back to the record, back to what's going on. Um any other further questions or statements from staff? I mean from from the commission.

3:03:14Okay. To the applicant.

3:03:16No, yes if there's anything

3:03:18to come for

3:03:18the

3:03:19I'm gonna let him finish. They

3:03:20need

3:03:20to

3:03:20finish their appeal. Um well I guess they You said that the issue with the HO is mute. If it isn't mute, we have the email confirming they approved it.

3:03:34Is that it? Are you done? Yes. Sorry. I

3:03:37think the the most important thing is the county

3:03:43I think his name is Mr. Mr. Clerk. Kind Andar. Mr. Curley admitting that the county made the mistake and the county is it responsible and he said forty percent. And that that's very, very important.

3:04:00That's all.

3:04:01Thank you. We'll go to public comment. Is there anyone here from the public like to speak to this item?

3:04:08Do we have a listen?

3:04:10We have no one on the list for this particular item.

3:04:13If you'd like to speak, please come forward.

3:04:20So your your name so your name and address for the record?

3:04:26Stone. Stone. My name is Robert Stone. I am licensed community association manager for the League Page State Sea Property Owners Association, which is located at 4533 Savannah Way, Land O' Lakes, Florida, 34639. I did swear in.

3:04:43The HOA board only looks at aesthetics. We have nobody that's a licensed surveyor, contractor. We look at the aesthetics, how is it going to look in the neighborhood? So there's an issue there that foregoes this whole issue. The building does not meet our setbacks. Our attorney is moving forward with taking action as an HOA. What the Board of County Commissioners I'm here for is the Board of Directors has asked you guys not to

3:05:13approve it because if it's approved and the house is sold, the handicapped Vietnam veteran that's buying it is gonna be the one that's held liable. in court through our attorney. To try to fix the problem.

3:05:28So I would have brought the copies of the emails that state That the whole house was not approved, the whole thread of the emails, not just the original one that said the driveway was approved. But again I thought that we weren't allowed to submit any new evidence.

3:05:45Well that's a different

3:05:48three minutes. Yeah.

3:05:49Any

3:05:49questions

3:05:50we can't we don't do question and answer on public comment sorry but I

3:05:53will end there then thank you very much

3:05:55thank you and we have to have a

3:05:57unless uh

3:05:57Rebecca Malone

3:05:59Hi Rebecca McConey, [address removed], and I was sworn. I did testify at the January meeting, that is my letter. I wasn't able to attend the April meeting in person. At both meetings, I did watch it, Mr. Plummer um stood was sworn, stood in front of the Planning Committee, and said that he was the builder. Ms. Vega did not get her building license until September 7th, 2022. She wasn't added as

3:06:29the owner of Soho Builders until April 11, 2022. The house that's all in your letter,

3:06:36correct? Yes, I gave I gave it away. Yes.

3:06:40Do we all get the letter? It was in the record. It's in the part of the record.

3:06:43And

3:06:45then we're going to be able to do that.

3:06:45This house was built by unlicensed contractors. That is the bottom line. They didn't have a license. Santa Fe remodeling has not shown up to any of these hearings. We don't know where they are or who they are, and then company had mentioned that he's tried to get in touch with the builder of record. Who isn't here. Um the other thing about having a license in the state of Florida, I am a licensed contractor in Florida and in Georgia. Having the license, that license will extend to

3:07:15the your employees who are W-2 employees. Do you have W-2 showing that you're employed by the

3:07:21That's that's not part of the record?

3:07:23Not relevant, not part of this hearing.

3:07:27So That's our sticking point. Um Mr. Clummer has disregarded every rule, every law. All the way through. He states in his application for the April meeting that he's planted landscaping, blocking the view. There's still no landscaping. He didn't even start mowing until the HOA started sending letters. Uh my concern is that they do sell to a poor disabled veteran who is left

3:07:58with a house that was built mostly on weekends by unlicensed contracts. And I think that's why you need to deny it. Thank you.

3:08:07Dan O'Day.

3:08:10Damn.

3:08:15Mm-hmm. Uh my name is Dan O'Day. I live at [address removed].

3:08:21Did you testify on April sixth?

3:08:23I did not.

3:08:23Did did you submit a letter that was filed on April sixth?

3:08:26Uh was my name on the other letter? I thought my name was on the letter.

3:08:35I

3:08:35am the neighbor.

3:08:37No, I d I don't see anything from you in the record on April sixth.

3:08:42So even if I'm not putting new he can make public comment. All right. He just has to he just has to limit his public comment to that of the record.

3:08:51Correct. Okay, thank you. Uh Daniel O'Day, [address removed]. I am the neighbor that has lost its view. My house was built in a certain way to view the neighborhood all the way down to the park. I can no longer see that. All the other houses in our neighborhood are set back thirty feet from the road. This one's twenty. So I have a view of a big white garage uh right out of my kitchen window. Um Landscaping is not going to fix this. Uh

3:09:22I think this is a very classic case of asking forgiveness instead of permission. Uh the contractor is responsible. Four. be sh uh ensuring that his job specifications are met. I too am a licensed contractor in the state. And uh If you can't use a take measure, that's really not. A problem for me. You should be measuring. Uh my my As I said, my value has been affected. He keeps saying that uh the values are going up. They're not going up. At all. Uh this house

3:09:52has a short driveway. uh right across the street from a bus stop. So now we have limited vision uh because of the shorter driveway at a bus stop location. Um They did try to uh uh give me a uh landscaping. Um the budget. I asked for more. I was accused on record of trying to extort them. Uh um So really that's all I gotta say. This is a real eyesore for me. It's

3:10:23affected my uh my value of my house. I've been there 22 years. And it's not the same. It's just not the same. So this will affect Uh um I seem to be the only one who defects. in this whole thing. Forty percent, sixty percent, I'm the one who's getting a hundred percent screwed up. Thank you. Okay.

3:10:41The only other signed in I believe is Mr. Daughter, Ken Daughter.

3:10:47I'm sorry? That's the attorney who spoke.

3:10:54Okay. Anyone else from the public like to speak to this item?

3:10:58Is there anyone on WebX?

3:11:00I have no sir.

3:11:01Okay, so I want to close public comment, bring it back to the board. Commissioner

3:11:03Oakley. Okay. The gentleman who spoke, I believe his name was Mr. Stone from HOA.

3:11:09Yes.

3:11:10What's his Was that information he gave us today? Was that on the record?

3:11:15Yes it was.

3:11:16Okay, that's why I was curious whether it was Yeah. All right.

3:11:21Uh give them an opportunity to rebut if there's anything they wish to rebut in public comment.

3:11:27Okay. So the the up you'd like to come forward and rebut?

3:11:34Well

3:11:36If we could open up page two hundred sixty-two of the Board of County Commissioners, I guess the report that the county submits all the it's the entire record of file.

3:12:06Two hundred and sixty two of what's the easy one. It's the right-of-way. Um the I guess the zoning department provides A document of record that's submitted on this document of record the first page. It says here

3:12:28W which attachment is that to the memo?

3:12:31Uh well I can only look at it as far as page numbers. It's the view of of the neighbor's home from their window.

3:12:41And this So you want photos presented to the Planning Commission? Yes.

3:12:46Yes, it was. It was part of the PowerPoint.

3:12:48It says agenda memorandum and it's it is page

3:12:53It's way down there.

3:13:01Mm-hmm.

3:13:04appears to be page two sixty two.

3:13:16I could put it up with my phone under there if I want to do it that way.

3:13:36Well you use the overhead? Okay.

3:13:43There are only four pr four photographs shown as being submitted to the Planning Commission.

3:13:51It was part of the original uh the the secondarians hearing. Um there's one of the front of the house.

3:14:01There's one up the street and there's one down the street. It was a part of a

3:14:06of a

3:14:06PowerPoint

3:14:07presentation?

3:14:08Yeah, it's his PowerPoint presentation that was presented to the Planning Commission.

3:14:12Okay.

3:14:12It's gonna be a picture of a roof with a flagpole, I believe.

3:14:16Yes.

3:14:16Okay.

3:14:19They're gonna force. They are? Yes.

3:14:25It should be in the package, yeah. Nonhysic PhD sixty six, but I'm not quite sure how the number anymore six million item.

3:15:00It's taken so low, so long back in time.

3:15:14This apart.

3:15:16And some areas. Yeah,

3:15:22It's attention with one, two, three, three. It's attention with six on the edge of the eight. And what slides are?

3:15:37Like it starts with like a certain thing.

3:15:42We'd be able to get an answer better to our stuff.

3:15:46D you should

3:15:46have everything. Well, I I can't I can't get into the agenda, so you can't get it's a mystery to me. I'm out of it again.

3:15:57Very crazy.

3:16:04I think it's page um thirteen, page thirteen of that PowerPoint.

3:16:14No.

3:16:17Let's keep on.

3:16:19Yep. Yeah.

3:16:23Well wait for it to come up. I'm gonna go to your application.

3:16:29Variance application. And it said permitting asked for the updated plans with a twenty-five front foot yard setback and a ten foot sides yet uh yard setbacks on december fifteenth, twenty twenty one. So you were asked clearly for those things. It was under your PowerPoint. Yeah.

3:16:52I don't have to get it.

3:16:53And um Did you guess did you get the testimony of the county employees is that as best as they could tell, only one sheet was uploaded. Unfortunately, um we

3:17:09We did not bring all of the emails from Pasco County to that hearing to present them. So we cannot present the evidence to counter that.

3:17:22But the system does issue a confirmation every time you upload a file.

3:17:30And so If you have more than one email It would seem that more than one file was uploaded.

3:17:41And I I did bring them all. All the confirmations from Pasco County of each file uploaded.

3:17:53Can I ask a question while we're waiting about it? Mr. Starkey. Can we continue this uh until we see the outcome of the lawsuit? That one.

3:18:02Well the H

3:18:03O

3:18:03A?

3:18:04Yeah.

3:18:06You can con yeah, there there would be no reason that you couldn't continue the matter. Um But it's really it's really your decision. um in terms of the county regulation.

3:18:22I don't wanna put this on. Disabled sector.

3:18:28That's that's what I was struggling with.

3:18:30Well, I mean the rules are the rules. They've admitted that they haven't done it properly. I mean they they started with a seventy f s uh seventy foot house, built a seventy three, and nobody knew that trusses weren't gonna match up.

3:18:44The setbacks were clearly said to him. Again, Commissioner,

3:18:47I I I realize you're get you're in you're getting into dialogue, but I would prefer that you finish with the appellate and have discussions between the two.

3:18:58Um it is part of the record. There is a picture also showing that uh the HOA setback requirements. Let's

3:19:09let's hold on for a minute. That's what it's best.

3:20:05Sounds like

3:20:05it's a good

3:20:05thing.

3:20:06Until you get to five

3:20:07o'clock.

3:20:13Um What I'm gonna do. Have we done all the commercial items? Yes or no? Yeah.

3:20:21Yeah, I would have to done.

3:20:25Yeah. Yeah.

3:20:29You don't take a five minute break?

3:20:33What's going on back there?

3:20:35Dunno.

3:20:39Let's take a five minute break. Wait for Seth.

3:20:47Okay, let's then check on something else. Yeah, sure.

3:29:53That's what I expect.

3:29:57Okay, the applicant would you like to go any further?

3:30:16Okay.

3:30:18Yeah.

3:30:27So I'll state my name for the record, Patrick Plummer. Um I work for Soho Builders Residential and Commercial Projects Inc. My address is 2801 Durant Road, Val Rico, Florida.

3:30:39So here we have the view from the neighbors window showing a flagpole that's in the park because their testimony was that they always had a view of the park. And by obscuring the view of the park, they're unhappy. Um so we did uh an aerial study based on where that fly pole is because only five feet of the garage is protruding out past that flypole. So if you go to the next one.

3:31:26Okay, so we drew a straight line of sight to that flagpole and we drew a cone of view of what what you would ha what you would have to see to see the park.

3:31:39And so from their straight line of sight to The flagpole you can see that the other house is on the block up to the corner.

3:31:50Can't say how.

3:31:53um they would have to see significant amount of of uh of you back from the flagpole, not just the five feet. And so the next slide we show if the house were five feet back What their view would be. And even if the house were set five feet back, they still would not see the park. We can see the next slide.

3:32:32Aside from this, we did in in our also in our presentation, we did reach out to them and we wanted to negotiate making them happy and their comments were that they needed thirty thousand dollars to redo their kitchen. Because they were gonna board they were gonna reconfigure their kitchen anyway and board up the window and they won't be looking out the window anyway. We i we offered to pay for the new kitchen but to supply our cabinet installers and our accounts at the cabinet makers so they wouldn't pay thirty thousand dollars retail and um we

3:33:02estimated that the kitchen would cost approximately ten thousand dollars to do with our cabinet installer and our materials. Um we tried over and over throughout the week leading up to the hearing to come to an agreement and the night before they just said that they wanted fifteen thousand dollars. So we just felt that We we wanted to make them happy. We just felt that what they were asking Um Was okay. Not

3:33:33an honest attempt to remedy the kitchen, um, although in hindsight it does, you know, if that's what would have made them happy, then that should have been the priority. So um aside from that also in my testimony, 'cause she does state that she's a contractor, the following slides after these do show that

3:33:55again her as a contractor, she has an illegal addition built on her house and a shed on her property line. So we also felt that it was Um I'm not sure if the proper word is cynical or uh b basically If you have a structure on your side on your setbacks and you have an illegal addition, Commissioner Weightman.

3:34:19Now we're throwing stones at the opposite team. Is that appropriate in this situation? We're only worried about this. Well,

3:34:25this is his rebuttal of the public comment that just was made about his variance request. And so far he's stayed to the record of that was an new one. It's my

3:34:38friend. And I and I apologize. We don't want to throw stones. We're just rebutting her testimony.

3:34:46And we would and we would actually be amicable to despite some despite the differences here Uh we are happy to provide a landscaping budget or other if they want to remodel their kitchen we could also help out with that. We we do want the neighbors to be happy. We're not trying to make them unhappy. Um we just want to make sure that those efforts are sincere. Um

3:35:13And we do we do have the email from the HOA explicitly stating approval. So if they're saying they're gonna sue us, We ha we have an explicit approval and email. And I have a copy of what was submitted that Does show the eight and a half foot setbacks in there and the 20 in the front that was submitted to them and this is what they approved. in the HOA documents

3:35:42Let's see more.

3:35:47In the H O A bylaws it actually states The setback requirements on front street and side street shall be on average of twenty-five from the property line. It doesn't say it has to be exactly twenty-five. It says on average. And if you look at the site plan, again we do meet those averages because only the twenty nine feet of the garage protrudes past the twenty five foot point. The rest of the home is um the difference of seventy three feet minus twenty nine. I think forty

3:36:17six forty

3:36:23Let me try to do this math.

3:36:26Was that information in the record, Mr. Plummer?

3:36:31Um

3:36:34It's a matter of record that the house is seventy three feet wide, the garage is twenty-nine, and the remainder is forty four. So these 44 feet meet the setbacks, these 29 feet do not, and that represents 39% of the front of the house. And that's why we were asking that if if the chief engineer on record stated that the county shared forty percent, we're only asking for that approval of that, those twenty nine feet of the garage. Um in

3:37:05closing

3:37:08as you got uh as the Board of County Commissioners I believe is allowed to set conditions. If you're so inclined as not to approve the appeal. We would ask that you appeal the approve the appeal with the condition that we cut back five feet of the garage. We'll cut the whole front of that garage back five feet.

3:37:33the the sides of the house um Under the land development code allow averaging? So we should only have to modify the front of the

3:37:43the uh the averaging of the side setbacks is not in the record. It's in the planning commission. Okay.

3:37:48So we would ask the Planning Commission to approve it on the condition if They're so inclined as not to approve it otherwise that we modify the front, that we submit a revision to the county. And we cut off the entire five twenty-nine feet long, wide, set it back five feet.

3:38:07In the interest to resolve the matter.

3:38:10Say that again? You would you would move the garage on it front back five feet.

3:38:15We will cut off five feet of the garage, the entire width of the garage.

3:38:19And what happens to the sides?

3:38:23Just be aside and draw your hand.

3:38:25The sides are something that would render the house unusable because the left side is entirely a bathroom um and all the bathroom spaces it's where the toilet is, it's where the shower is. So removing a foot and a half would make the the the area where the toilet is, it wouldn't meet code. The sh depths of the shower wouldn't meet code. Um the bedroom would go from thirteen feet to eleven and a half. Um And it would it it represents a m a major modification

3:38:56far above Mr. Chairman M this block construction? Block construction. The whole block. Yes. So we are open to cutting back the entire front of the garage, which is what is upsetting the neighbor's view. And um we can also do the gutters The culvert and landscaping.

3:39:19The the problem with that. Yeah, the problem with cutting that does will it now be recessed behind the other part of other garage? I mean so that you're not gonna have thirty five feet of straight garage going across?

3:39:33Well the garage itself would be a twenty nine foot wide, um two car garage.

3:39:40That's not what I'm asking. If you cut off five feet, it becomes recessed v behind the other garage door? Are you talking about both garages?

3:39:49Both.

3:39:55It's the entire garage portion. that is over the setbacks. So we would trim the entire garage with backlight.

3:40:03I'm just worried that you make a house look even worse than it does.

3:40:10Is is the rest of the house Means the subtax in the front.

3:40:15The other forty four forty four feet, I believe they're within an inch to an inch and a half. Like if it's twenty five feet it maybe twenty four feet, ten and a half inches or so. I believe it's just about it. And I have asked the surveyor to go back because their instruments are um, you know, calibrated to an inch. So it could be a half inch, it could be an inch, inch and a half. Um so we're we're just really close on that.

3:40:47So the one neighbor still has the one issue with being close to him.

3:40:53Only the neighbor on the right has an issue with Is

3:40:55that the same one that has the view issue?

3:40:57Yes. And that would be resolved.

3:41:02Chairman Mariano ask if that's a sufficient

3:41:07Well let's let him finish. Well let me ask you this. So the sadly you don't have an agreement with them. Have you talked to them about these provisions to the neighbor?

3:41:17No, but if uh w we we did initially, but since then we have not. And so

3:41:22Let me do let me s let's do this then. We got a five fifteen start for the budget. Let's let them go to the other room, see if they can come back where everybody can agree and if they can do the drop back of the tw from the twenty feet to the twenty five feet and they can make 'em appeased with the s setback issue that they have to decide? We can consider that.

3:41:47Can you put a car in the garage after they fit it back five feet?

3:41:50Who knows, but I think they get one behind that they could actually go if they want to.

3:42:02All right. I'll let you go with the neighbors and let's take a break on this. We'll take a five minute break so we can get the paperwork together. We'll start our five fifteen meter. Correct. Is that okay with the board?

3:42:15Yeah, I I do I do want to throw out one idea.

3:42:23So knowing that in Florida people don't usually park their car in the garage, but they put all their stuff in it. When we built our house, we built an oversized two garage two car garage and then the other side next to that is a carpet. port so it's open. and um I'll send you a picture and maybe that's something to think about is

3:42:46that you So we we did speak to the HOA and and say that if if the board approved if the Planning Commission approved a carport, we would make it a carport and just put a column there and it wouldn't obstruct the view. I love it. However, um the representative from the HOA did not collaborate our discussions Uh we're not sure why, but they said that carports are not allowed in the H O. So we uh according to what we understand the H O A will not allow a carport. Well we did suggest that.

3:43:15Right. We've got a room downstairs here. You guys can go downstairs as a room to the side, right across the receptionist to the right hand side. If you all guys want to get together and talk, that's great. We're gonna have our five fifteen meeting uh as soon as we can get all the paperwork passed out. It's five fifteen.

3:43:33Mm-hmm.

3:44:54Oh

3:44:56Yeah.