PDD-23-2101 Soho Builders Victoria Road front and side setback variance

52:11Okay, Liam Divine planning development.

52:14All right.

52:15Item PDD 23-2101 in the name of Soho Builders slash Victoria Road. It is a variance request 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 the R2 low density residential district. The subject site is located on the south side of Victoria Road, approximately 215 feet west of Shelfin Shelffield

52:42Road.

52:44Uh here is the aerial view.

52:48Okay.

52:49The surrounding future land use is Res 6. The surrounding zoning is R2. 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 8.5 feet and will allow the issuance of a CO for the existing residents. The subject site has a feature land use classification of res 6 under the comprehensive plan. On December

53:197, 2021, the applicant submitted a building permit for the single-family detached dwelling. And on January 26, 2022, Building Construction Services uploaded an agenda packet for the building permit. In the agenda packet or the approval packet, there was three sets of sheets that were labeled Site Plan number A, one of which had the correct setbacks. The other two had the incorrect setbacks, 20 for the front and eight and a half for the side. Um

53:52Which is included in your agenda packet under attachment three. And then on October thirty-first, twenty twenty-two, building construction services communicated with the owner slash applicant that the as-built survey was rejected due to not meeting the front setback of twenty-five feet and the side um setback of eighteen feet. Subsequently, the applicant was notified that they would need a variance moving forward. Forward. And I would also like to note that um and it might be easier to see um on

54:23the side here, the the left side or the west side does qualify um in our LDC to do side um yard averaging and they would meet that averaging. However, um since we're already doing the variance requests for the front and the other side of the building, um we included that as well.

54:41the side yard averaging?

54:43So so if you look at the house the way it's built, um portion of the side is set further in. So what you would do is you would actually average those two side um sides um for for the side yard averaging setback. And I could have explained that better, but so you ha you have a side yard um setback of eight and a half and then let's say you you have another portion of that side that is set further back, which this case they're on the same side or something. On the same side. Okay. Sorry.

55:15Um

55:19And is that an actual as built survey or is that

55:23that this is a snippet from the actual agenda packet um for the incorrect setbacks for for this one.

55:35And my clicker is no longer working.

55:39So the question that I have with them is Why are there three site planes?

55:47That is a great question. So um from my understanding and maybe the applicant um can can speak better to this than I can. Um from my understanding there was a submittal that had um the incorrect setbacks. There were um revisions and updated sheets that were submitted. Um however somehow submitting and replacing those and approving the packets um some got left in and some were not removed.

56:13Okay. So when they so the site plan that has the current Correct setbacks was submitted in response to a site plan that was submitted with incorrect setbacks.

56:26That is my understanding.

56:27Okay. But then that's then there's a third site plan.

56:32The third site plan um show was for drainage. Um that drainage had incorrect setbacks. Um so there were in the approval packet there were three sheets that were labeled site plan number A.

56:48Got it. All right. And is there's no as built survey in the packet. And the reason I'm asking about as built survey is we're asking for side yard setbacks of eight and a half feet, but on two of the site plans on the right side of the house, it identifies the setback as being eight point four feet. So do we have a survey that shows whether it's eight point four, eight point five, eight point three?

57:14I can double check and I will let you know. You you could be right, which then we would need to um amend the the the packet to say eight point four.

57:29So I can I can a as the applicant gets up to speak to answer any questions and we do have opposition to this item as well. Um I can verify if it's eight point five or eight point. That would be great.

57:40Yeah. I I guess if I'm if I'm just doing simple math here, you got a ninety foot lot and you got one plan that shows ten foot side setbacks, somewhere I would think the contractor would have noticed that he was building a seventy three foot wide house, not a seventy foot wide house. I mean all his I mean his materials would have been off. Every everything in the whole construction would have been off. I can't believe we got to the end before we realized that there was a problem.

58:02Right, and the building plans that are in the packet say it's a seventy three foot wide house and that's what I'm like, somewhere along the line this house grew.

58:11I mean I I don't I personally I I hate I mean obviously I hate for obvious well for obvious reasons I hate when these things come to us because everything's built. What what are you gonna do? Have somebody shaved three feet off their s off their house? I mean I don't I don't know how you Well we're not done yet. It's gonna get better, but let's hear from

58:25the people.

58:26Let's hear from the applicant. Okay. And then we'll see if there's anybody else here that's read. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Applicant, we can state your name and address, please.

58:35Patrick Plummer, um the site address that we're dealing with? Or my personal address. Your personal address. [address removed]. Okay. Okay.

58:48All right, you wanna tell us how we got to where we are?

58:51So

58:54We have an architect um that that also used drafting services. Uh it's not one single person. So they drew up the plans. It's my understanding they submitted them. There was feedback that the original eight and a half foot setback was not a was not okay, so it had to be ten. So plans were revised and resubmitted. However, at the submittal process, something happened in Pasco County with the fact that There's drop-down

59:24boxes when you're submitting documents and one of them specifically says site plan. So you pick site plan and you upload the site plan. One says drainage and you upload drainage. Well, apparently Mr Moody who reviews drainage stamped the site plan as drainage and approved. I saw that. And so there was a confusion whereas for some reason three site plans were included and approved. two of which had the incorrect site plan. So when the

59:54architect passed us the packet to build the house, they gave us the two pages that said site plan, not stand by moody as drainage. So we did not see the side plan that said ten foot setbacks. We only ever saw one that was eight and a half. and apparently also when we downloaded the plans to build the house Somehow we built the house that is seventy three foot wide, not seventy. And apparently.

1:00:23was from the very beginning because even the trusses when they were ordered were ordered for the wrong house. So then during construction we get to the point where we have the stem wall built but we've and we've filled in the dirt and compacted it. We've done our plumbing and our electric wall underground but we haven't put this the foundation. And we Are required to submit a tie-in survey showing the elevation we're gonna put the slab and the setbacks. And so we called an inspection and failed

1:00:53because we didn't have the tie in on site. So we got the tie in surveyed We uploaded it. It was reviewed. as it was built in correctly. And approved. So no one caught the issue at that point either. So

1:01:06the setback wasn't caught during the tie-in survey.

1:01:08Correct. And so that was also approved? Which would have been a great time to catch it because then changing a stem wall is a little different than a house. So we proceeded to build the entire house, finished the house, got all of our inspections passed, submitted our tie-in survey, which I did just email the actual as-built survey, showing that it is indeed 8.5 feet where it said 8.4, and it's 8.6 in the front. Okay. So he has that now. Then that's

1:01:38a actual survey company, certified survey company. So it was a genuine mistake. We um as far as builders are concerned, the the it's not like this is a five thousand square foot lot where we're s constricted. We had plenty of room to build any house that would have fit on the lot. given the setbacks. So So

1:02:00you said you do you hired an architect to design the house?

1:02:03Yes. And this is a model we built before. So I'm assuming they also just took this model and we're sitting it on this lot.

1:02:12Is the engineer that stamped these plans here today?

1:02:15No, he's not. And I I have been working with him for ten years.

1:02:20Yeah.

1:02:21Yes. And we've never had this issue before.

1:02:24Are you aware that your engineer does not have the appropriate building code certification to stamp house plans?

1:02:32No.

1:02:33Well, he doesn't.

1:02:35Okay. we'll have to look at that because as as we understand as the engine

1:02:40on the special qualifications, David.

1:02:44As it is on mine.

1:03:00Well I think similar to the

1:03:04prior variance requests if we we feel that somebody's acted outside the scope of your license that's something for staff to report.

1:03:13Okay, good, because you're obligated by Florida statutes four seventy one to do that.

1:03:23The statute I just handed the assistant county attorney indicates that if an engineer does not have the proper certification on his license for Something that's permitted under the Florida Building Code, it's the obligation of the county to report that activity to the Board of Engineers.

1:03:43I'm not aware of the intricacies of I understand he's an engineer and he Um

1:03:48well I'm making a point of it today because I know there's a lot of that that goes on in this county and I'm actually frankly shocked that it goes on in this county. It's been going on for a long time and it needs to stop. And the county has an obligation to do something under that statute.

1:04:11So

1:04:14And we we do have two architectural firms. We're not specifically t tied to him, so if he does have an issue with certifying our plans, we can absolutely Let him know that we've discovered this and work with the other architect.

1:04:32Well other things I caught and it's probably relevant to the case. I think the site plan that was stamped as the drainage plan says it's drainage scheme B. When all the arrows on the plan show that it's actually drainage scheme A, so That shows me we're probably not even competent to do the drainage plan that got approved. I'm also frankly shocked that a drainage plan can get approved, that's just a bunch of squiggly arrows. The building code does have certain specific requirements and I'm trying to figure out how some

1:05:02squiggly arrows demonstrate that you complied with the building code. So I don't know who's in charge of that particular section and I know I tend to get a lot of grief when I submit some of these, so how's this happening?

1:05:19So Liam and Terry, do we have anybody from BCS online or in the audience?

1:05:34We do not. I think in the future when you have these variances that are resulting from

1:05:43pairs in the building BCS building review process that you need to have somebody from BCS available to answer these kinds of questions. I understand that you can't, but these are legitimate questions that are coming up that somebody from BCS should be here to answer.

1:06:02Understood. I can tell you that I did reach out to individuals from BCS, however, um with a holiday break I did reach out very late and have not heard a response. The individuals that usually attend these meetings on B BCS behalf are I can tell you are um out. Um so I was trying to coordinate somebody else to attend.

1:06:24Okay, but regardless, are you gonna notify the appropriate BCO staff person about the violation so they can

1:06:33Absolutely.

1:06:34They're supposed to check every time an engineer submits A permit, it's a building permit, not site plans, not zonings, but it goes for a building permit. They're supposed to check that that engineer has the proper certification to do that work. And this is just one I happen to catch in checking it today, but I can tell you there's lots of it that goes on in this county that hasn't been caught. And it needs to get caught 'cause I see all kinds of garbage. I'm coming out.

1:07:08Okay, well I trust that Liam will inform them to do their duty under the Florida statute to notify the board of the violation. Thank you.

1:07:21We we do have somebody in opposition.

1:07:26Okay.

1:07:26And I will also state we you she was granted an extra two minutes as well. Okay.

1:07:32Right. Thank

1:07:33you.

1:07:35Mm-hmm.

1:07:40Just this big this

1:07:41big button and you'll just point it this way, okay? So we need your name and address and Rebecca

1:07:47McConey, [address removed].

1:07:50And you've been sworn?

1:07:52Yes. Okay, so here is the house as it's built. You can see that it doesn't actually fit into the setbacks of the neighboring houses throughout the whole Neighborhood. The builder owner does not have a contracting license. He's eligible for the exam. Miss Vega. was granted her general contracting license on September 7th, 2022, when

1:08:22the house was already built. Um so what we have here is he was made aware of the setbacks when his first application was denied. He submitted a second plan with the correct setbacks.

1:08:36So he knew. It's it's not like this was a surprise. Um he had the opportunity to petition for the variance prior to building. He chose not to. He is here asking forgiveness, not permission, and I'm not sure that that is the precedent your board wants to set. Um Let's see.

1:08:59The Plans to the right were included in the building plans. I'm not sure how much more Pasco County Building Department could

1:09:10He needed ten foot side setbacks and a twenty five foot front setback.

1:09:17Um This is the sheet that was given him. Setbacks clearly noted on it.

1:09:26Can you show me where real quick?

1:09:28Oh, sorry. I don't know how the back. Um they are well it says setbacks a couple boxes down on the left.

1:09:40Oh, okay. I see them. Yep. So they're clearly there on the permit.

1:09:45Um and then your next one. Well, and also the seventy three foot house and a ninety foot lot. He had never had any intention of meeting the setbacks, which he was made well aware of.

1:09:59Um so this is the one that was also there with the correct setbacks. And then you have the build-in permit itself, which notes the correct setbacks. Um These are some of the notes and the inspections that are available on the website. Uh he didn't have his permit posted. in February. He didn't have his permit posted in March. And it was noted that the slab was in the wrong place in March.

1:10:30But he continued building and Pasco County allowed it and they kept playing.

1:10:38So just an overview. Um you know, and I know that he answered some questions in his application and and just Our view out our kitchen window is now the side of his garage. So had he met the appropriate setbacks? We wouldn't be looking at a white wall. And the front of our house only has three windows. That's perfect. Uh let's see. And

1:11:08again you can see just um you know, and the other issue with the drainage, and I know you mentioned that, um we all have a drainage ditch in front and a culvert under our driveway. That was not installed. So we are now flooding.

1:11:25Um our recommendation is that the builder remove the front tub area, the covered entry, and pull the garage back, looking at his site plans uh building plans. Uh it shouldn't be prohibitive. Um cost wise, so less than ten percent of the total cost of his building. Um And I agree, it's built, the sides have backs. you can't shave um new bit. His argument In needing to keep the

1:11:55house this size, is that the 14 foot wide sorry bathroom would be now too small to be usable.

1:12:06So

1:12:08That's right.

1:12:09Anything else? Nope. Did you cover it? Um any questions from up here?

1:12:15So to be clear y you don't have an objection to the side setback variance, but you do have an objection to the front setback variance.

1:12:24Um I can understand that the cost to meet the side setbacks at this point would be prohibitive. They've had to take down the house essentially. Um but I do think that there are some modifications that can be made To meet the front setback.

1:12:45But I g uh uh the reason I'm asking the question is you talked about how the front setback variance is the front setback issue is affecting your view. You didn't say whether the side setback issue was affecting you in any way?

1:13:00Um no other than it's just

1:13:04Too close.

1:13:06Okay.

1:13:10Okay, you've answered my question thing.

1:13:13All right. Is there any anybody else who would like to speak? Yeah,

1:13:17I have one question. When I was going through this documentation about The um Present it to us. I had a concern because setbacks have been brought up a number of times, especially by the Board of County Commissioners. My question is the driveway. I noticed in the other case. from the maps and from pictures. online of the homes in your community have significantly uh Large driveways. And by large I mean they fit the cars. Has th

1:13:48this driveway presented a problem with parking cars in it or being too small to have put one or two cars in there.

1:13:58I think they could fit too. But would

1:14:01it be a hazard?

1:14:04It'll block our view uh of the road.

1:14:06Well I'm I guess what I'm concerned about is parking cars in there. It's been brought up before from some folks that I spoke to in the past, not this particular project. But some of the homes that are being built in Pasco County have very s narrow by narrow I mean short driveways where you can't park the vehicles in there. Safely because they back up and they when they are backing up they may have one or two feet to back up and then they're in the road. That's the right-of-way.

1:14:33Well I think the concern to be clear Mr. Handel, the concern that's been raised at the board level in the past is when they block the sidewalk. So they park they park the point to the point where it's blocking the the free flow of using the sidewalk, but it doesn't appear there's any Sidewalks in this neighborhood, from what I can tell, like

1:14:52There are none. I've I've seen from the m I saw from the map that there are no sidewalks, but who knows eventually. Yeah,

1:14:59and that and that is a very busy intersection there. That's the main entrance to the back of the community. So there is a a significant amount of traffic there and cars parked there will block the view of the street from I mean

1:15:19Okay. I guess I have more questions for you. Thank you very much. Yeah.

1:15:27All right. If there's nobody else to speak, do the applicant would like to respond?

1:15:36So the the distance from the house to the street is forty-five feet. Um given that the length of a car is probably around 17 feet um and it does have a three car garage so the the occupants of the house while they have th three spaces inside the garage it's a two it's a the the driveway is for two cars so two cars could park side by side And still be

1:16:06approximately twenty eight feet from the street? Right. So I don't feel that's any that's an issue with obstructing anyone's view to pull out or safely in and out of their driveway.

1:16:17Jamie, the

1:16:18question forty five feet's to the

1:16:19center line of the road, correct? The edge of the road's probably more like thirty-four, thirty-five, just to clarify for the record.

1:16:27Okay. Yes, I have so I have twenty feet to the property line and then it looks like I suppose another fifteen feet? Okay, so about Thirty five feet?

1:16:40The road's approximately twenty-one feet wide. So and it's a twenty five foot um right-of-way from the center of the road to the front of the property line.

1:16:50Correct. And also, um modifying five feet of the front of the house, um, I guess the way trusses are designed, you can't just cut 'em off and You you would actually have to cut back, I suppose, significantly into the house and redesign the slope of the roof to remove five feet from the front of the house. Um And I'm not sure. I haven't done a cost analysis, but it it would be significant to modify

1:17:23And um at Soho Builders we work with Alejandro Perez who is a licensed general contractor and has been for 20 years. And so when we started this project, he is our builder and we work with him. And during the course of building the house, Ladies Vega became licensed as a contractor. and um took over supervision of the construction with Alejandro. So she's been like an accessory

1:17:53to him, um like a right hand person to help finish the house. Um so there was never any unlicensed activity being performed on this job site.

1:18:09Yes, it it is currently under contract and um set to close next Friday.

1:18:19Yeah.

1:18:20So they're aware of this problem?

1:18:22Yes.

1:18:23Yeah.

1:18:23They're aware.

1:18:24Are they here?

1:18:25No, they did not come. They're out of they actually live up north and they're moving down here.

1:18:31I is there a rebuttal to the the things that were brought up where the in March you guys were made aware that the footers were not and the the slab was not a

1:18:41we were not made aware um I I do have an I can submit here as part of the record.

1:18:49When we submitted the form board, which is the the the um tie-in survey That was March twenty fourth. And we do not have any comments that there is anything wrong with going this way. Um with it. And it and I do have a printout of the of the website. Showing that it was approved.

1:19:13So I'm not sure where those where those comments come from indicating

1:19:17that I got I got s I got two people under oath saying opposite thing. So that's

1:19:22Well it's my problem.

1:19:24They look like screenshots from a cell.

1:19:25Yeah, that's Okay. If if there was a problem, they would not have approved it and let us pour the slab.

1:19:34Well I I mean there there's a lot of things that in reality you look at and you say they wouldn't have let you do. I I get it. But I and there's also I mean there could be comments made in a cella that were posted and then they went and did something else, a different department did something else. Um I I d I just find it hard to I mean, I don't think

1:19:53she's made that up. I and I what she did present were like bubbles of like messages. I did bring the actual screenshots from Osala. So I can only speak to while the house was being built, what what the inspector's comments actually are of the record. Anyone can pull them up. Um

1:20:14So you're building these houses but you don't know what the setbacks are?

1:20:18Um You know? We did build another house actually on Eagle Boulevard or E Eagle Boulevard and the setbacks there are actually five feet So the setbacks do vary. Um it's not across Pasco County, it's not the same setback.

1:20:34Well we understand that. My question for you is every one of those site plans I saw was signed and sealed by an engineer. He didn't know the setbacks? He was told. He got told to resubmit because the setbacks were wrong.

1:20:47And some there was some disconnect when we submitted the original plans and we made the changes and resubmitted? And we and the uh The site plan was even sent to the survey company to do the stake out. Um we had th three copies of it and two had the incorrect set setbacks. So Um the one that has the right says backs is stamped by Moody as a drainage plan. So when we were provided um the site plan

1:21:17Well if the the the c the problem that I got with that is if there was a plan there that had the proper setbacks That means it had the proper size house.

1:21:28And so

1:21:29somewhere along the line the house grew by three feet.

1:21:32Well it it didn't so just to correct that, it didn't grow after the fact. The original house submitted was seventy three feet. And that's ultimately what was built through some error. So

1:21:44were plans for a narrower house resubmitted, Liam?

1:21:50They resubmitted a site plan, a drainage plan that had proper setbacks. Were the was there ever revised building plan submitted? What is the trust plan, Joe? And isn't it the same engineer that signed the house plan, that signed the site plan? He responsible to coordinate these things? The trust plan

1:22:08seventy three.

1:22:11And again when we went to the county website to download these things There were three sheets.

1:22:20Yeah, but they're your plans. Yes. The county didn't prepare the plans. And the county might have messed up in how they filed their plans or whatever. At the end of the day you're the builder. You didn't know what you were building? Your engineer didn't know what he was designing?

1:22:33There was a mix up because we did not intend to build a seventy three foot wide house. It's But

1:22:38you did?

1:22:39Yes we did.

1:22:40We didn't intend to build a seventy three foot wide house but we did.

1:22:43No. We get the plans and Um It's a process, so you you submit for the stakeout, you get a stakeout, you do your footers.

1:22:52Mr. Chairman Mariano.

1:22:56All right.

1:23:01So to be clear you need to then state which of the variance criteria they do not meet. Um I don't believe it was a bona fide error for one. Well, one of the criteria is that they have to show that the alleged hardship was not created by any person presently having an interest in the property.

1:23:23It sounds like you've concluded it it was created by a person who has an interest in the property.

1:23:33Well you can also argue that it was Well there's two parts of the variance too. It's the setback from

1:23:38the

1:23:38street as well as

1:23:39the side setback from

1:23:40the state.

1:23:40Well it's the it's all it's all given under setback. What is that from our side?

1:23:46And on the right side, which is where the neighbor is To the house portion we have twenty one feet and to the garage portion we have eight and a half. Um so I suppose that wall is probably

1:24:05Well he's looking for those. I'm gonna go ahead and second the motion.

1:24:09All right, we have a motion and a second for further discussion.

1:24:15So I I mean discussion on the

1:24:16motion is

1:24:17I just want to be clear that so your Mr. Moody, it's your position that

1:24:24It's my

1:24:26insertion.

1:24:28Typically in a variance. We give variances for things that are functions of the property. They're not caused by one's own doing. They did this. In my opinion, they did this, that they were responsible for this. His design professional did not properly coordinate the drawings, whether the county miss miss stamp the drawings at the end of the day. Somebody's eng his engineer signed and sealed site plans, drainage

1:24:58plans, and house plans that didn't Coordinate. He was working directly for you. You and it's not like you didn't have knowledge. We had testimony that there was a foundation tie-in survey, so it was known early on that this house was in the wrong place. It's right on the building permit, face of the building permit, what the permitted setbacks are. And it's not hard to look it up. You can the Pascoal County Land Development Code's online and this isn't

1:25:29like an MPUD where we gotta go get a master plan and try to research the setbacks. These this is a Euclidean zonian district. And it's right there for all to see.

1:25:37When the tying survey was requested it was uploaded and and reviewed by the county and approved despite the incorrect sentence. And it was not caught at that time.

1:25:48I understand your position.

1:25:51So based on w it was absolutely not intentional.

1:25:54So based on the comments you made, it appears to be your position they don't meet any of the variance criteria. From what the way you summarized your position. So it's not

1:26:04a function of the property, it's a function of their

1:26:07Well, I think you're saying it's not a function of the property, it's not a bona fide staff error, that it is injurious to the adjoining property owners, potentially a public safety issue. Um and the property can be put to a reasonable use even without the variance. Is that

1:26:26Well that was the original intent was to put it to reasonable use without the variance. So yes, all of the above.

1:26:33And to be clear, are you moving to deny both the front setback variance and the side setback variance? Yes. Okay.

1:26:44We don't have an objection from the joint property or the side setback, so I think the problem is the front setback. That's the biggest problem.

1:26:52Well the way the document reads that what we are to approve is the variance is for a number variance. So that's what we're denying. Yes, but

1:27:01it's true, but there's two technically two separate variance requests, one for a side setback and one for a sundry. That's what I was gonna ask

1:27:08if we break the easy.

1:27:12But but the motion on the floor is to deny both. Is that correct? Which

1:27:15I agree and although she wasn't up here whining about it. She did say it's too close.

1:27:26Okay, so w I think we have to vote on the motion that's on the floor. And if that fails then we'll be open to another motion. So fair enough.

1:27:36And

1:27:38we have a motion and we're gonna vote. So thank you very much. Okay.

1:27:42Okay. My I'm sorry, my l I understand you're gonna vote.

1:27:50portion is eight and a half feet from her property line. The rest of the house is twenty one and a half feet.

1:27:57Are you able to modify the front of that house to

1:28:07Um what's that do to your client?

1:28:14So this is under further discussion of the motion. Sorry.

1:28:19Could I approach and show you the the floor plan? Sure. Okay.

1:28:32Sir, you're not being picked up on the record, so you're gonna have to turn the mic around so that the clerk can pick up your comments.

1:28:39So here is the gar this garage area so you can see this is her house. And from here to the property line we have twenty one and a half.

1:28:52And from here to the property line we have eight and a half. So it's only this portion that's one and a half feet.

1:28:59Too close.

1:29:01Well in addition to being too close

1:29:03to

1:29:03the street.

1:29:03Well and five feet close to the street. Right. We're also

1:29:05talking

1:29:06about five feet into the street.

1:29:07Correct. So I suppose

1:29:09I So you would have to make it shorter or narrow.

1:29:12But I think that would stretch across the entire front of the house.

1:29:18If it were if it were just this portion, maybe, but if we're cutting off the entire f front five feet of the house.

1:29:29Two, three, four, assist of engineers. Okay.

1:29:36Here's five feet to this wall, five feet four to here. So it would be that would be this, all of the front entry. Oh really the laundry.

1:29:51So let's just say

1:29:54anybody down here want to see it?

1:29:58Yeah, because if you bring this garage in, you're not gonna bring a parking park anymore.

1:30:03And the garage looks all this way.

1:30:05So I need to make sure you guys are all talking in the microphones when you're speaking, please. It can the clerk hear what they're saying?

1:30:12I can hear the microphone just right.

1:30:14Oh okay.

1:30:17We're just looking at the plans and seeing that um if the front of the garage is shortened then you it's not gonna be usable garage. It'll be uh

1:30:26You won't be able to get a car into the garage. It's already n nineteen feet ten inches back wall to front to the garage door, which is as short as it is. So if you take even two feet off of that you wouldn't be able to get a car in there.

1:30:49Okay, well.

1:30:53Mr. Moody? Yes. So I'd like to get this back to the

1:30:55board without

1:30:56the Mr.

1:30:57I don't see a practical way of fixing that. And again I'm gonna qualify that I'm not a structural engineer or an architect either. So

1:31:07I'm glad you said

1:31:08that. So so is your motion stand the way it is? Yes. Okay.

1:31:14Okay, so we do have a motion. We have had we've had discussion. Is there any further discussion?

1:31:20Yeah, I guess before we vote, I mean obviously this it's not I mean this is not an easy thing and there's no uh there's doesn't appear to be easy fix out there. Um I mean the the point being that the the builder was made aware of of the issue at the beginning when the permit was issued. The setbacks were clearly identified in the permit. Um I you I think you acknowledged they were Told you were told because you revised part of the plans. Furthermore, I I I I I feel like and I think

1:31:50th the the picture out the kitchen window or out the front of the house where I mean it's clearly it's it's it's created a hardship on the neighbor. Um I I mean i I I I look at it as if somebody wanted to if somebody lived on the on the water and they wanted to put a solid fence up and and all of a sudden the neighbor couldn't see the w the water from their house that they could see before and they were entitled to see the the water, they You've created a hardship to that person. So that's why I mean to me I I think even though there's not an easy fix it it's it This is a pr it's a problem. I get it. I

1:32:19that's why I'm against it. When when you talk about easy fix I Sir sir, sir with no more

1:32:25testimony. This is to the to the planning commission now. There's no more rebuttal. Okay. Peter,

1:32:30anything? Well one comment I have is first of all, um It was indicated uh that screenshots were shown that there were certain approvals on it, but we never physically screenshots, so there's no evidence there. The only evidence that has been brought forward was the fact that, and I think it was verbally, that that certain items were not approved by the county. Or if they were approved, they were somehow interpreted as

1:33:00being approved to fit this particular lot. And the fact that only several folks here had the opportunity to see the map, I could see that if he wanted to contest this down the road, that the

1:33:14A person who is in the legal profession may say, hey look, not everybody on the board saw these documents, therefore the vote may not have been sufficiently documented. So my concern is to move forward and

1:33:33I hate to say pay the price, but a comedy of heirs is what comes in my mind and this is what happened. And that's the reason why I have a hard time even thinking about approving this particular item. I hope I didn't lose you in my train of thought, but that's how I

1:33:48So I'm not sure if you're suggesting It should be denied or suggesting it should be continued so we can bring BCS back to the right. Okay,

1:33:55that's I'm I'm con concerned that it be denied.

1:34:00Okay.

1:34:03Okay.

1:34:03Thank you. So it's a question. If the motion is for excuse me, is just a minute.

1:34:08No sir. No. No. Okay. Oh very well done.

1:34:12So so if the ultimate um decision is for denial is there anything preventing the applicant from um making amendments or changes to the building and then coming back for an uh a different variance if they are are not able to make the variance.

1:34:29They could they could apply for a different variant. They I don't think they can apply for the same variance. I think our code prohibits them from

1:34:36But this doesn't stop him from attempting if we deny the variance, this doesn't stop him from modifying the house to fit within the uh permitted setbacks.

1:34:46Oh absolutely or if the modification is within five feet so uh uh four feet so five feet. He could come back and

1:34:53ask for a different variance, yes.

1:34:57You're you're acting on the variance that's been requested. Correct. Right.

1:35:03Okay, so I think we've had discussion. We have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed, like sign. Motion carries. Okay, so the request for variance is denied.

1:35:43Mm-hmm.